Jones v. Edmonds Police

W.D. Washington

Jones v. Edmonds Police

DecidedAugust 15, 2023

Docket2:23-cv-01194

StatusUnknown

This text of Jones v. Edmonds Police (Jones v. Edmonds Police) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jones v. Edmonds Police, (W.D. Wash. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2

3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE

9 10 CORTEZ DAUNDRE JONES, CASE NO. C23-1194JLR 11 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 12 EDMONDS POLICE, 13 Defendant. 14

15 Before the court are (1) pro se Plaintiff Cortez Daundre Jones’s motion for leave 16 to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) (IFP App. (Dkt. # 1)) and (2) United States 17 Magistrate Judge Brian A. Tsuchida’s report and recommendation recommending the 18 court deny Mr. Jones’s IFP motion (R&R (Dkt. # 2)).1 Having carefully reviewed the 19

20 1 Although the report and recommendation states that Mr. Jones is permitted to file objections to the report and recommendation by August 23, 2023, the Ninth Circuit has held that a plaintiff is not entitled to submit written objections to a Magistrate Judge’s report and 21 recommendation that IFP status should be denied. Minetti v. Port of Seattle, 152 F.2d 1113, 1114 (9th Cir. 1998). Accordingly, the court will not afford Mr. Jones an opportunity to object 22 to the instant report and recommendation. 1 foregoing documents and the governing law, the court ADOPTS the report and 2 recommendation (Dkt. # 2) and DENIES Mr. Jones’s motion for leave to proceed IFP

3 (Dkt. # 1). Mr. Jones shall pay the usual filing fee by September 14, 2023. If he fails to 4 do so, this case will be dismissed. 5 Dated this 15th day of August, 2023. 6 A 7 8 JAMES L. ROBART United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

19 20 21 22

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2

3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE

9 10 CORTEZ DAUNDRE JONES, CASE NO. C23-1194JLR 11 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 12 EDMONDS POLICE, 13 Defendant. 14

15 Before the court are (1) pro se Plaintiff Cortez Daundre Jones’s motion for leave 16 to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) (IFP App. (Dkt. # 1)) and (2) United States 17 Magistrate Judge Brian A. Tsuchida’s report and recommendation recommending the 18 court deny Mr. Jones’s IFP motion (R&R (Dkt. # 2)).1 Having carefully reviewed the 19

20 1 Although the report and recommendation states that Mr. Jones is permitted to file objections to the report and recommendation by August 23, 2023, the Ninth Circuit has held that a plaintiff is not entitled to submit written objections to a Magistrate Judge’s report and 21 recommendation that IFP status should be denied. Minetti v. Port of Seattle, 152 F.2d 1113, 1114 (9th Cir. 1998). Accordingly, the court will not afford Mr. Jones an opportunity to object 22 to the instant report and recommendation. 1 foregoing documents and the governing law, the court ADOPTS the report and 2 recommendation (Dkt. # 2) and DENIES Mr. Jones’s motion for leave to proceed IFP

3 (Dkt. # 1). Mr. Jones shall pay the usual filing fee by September 14, 2023. If he fails to 4 do so, this case will be dismissed. 5 Dated this 15th day of August, 2023. 6 A 7 8 JAMES L. ROBART United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

19 20 21 22

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Jones v. Edmonds Police, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-v-edmonds-police-wawd-2023.