Langadinos v. Washington State Bar Association

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT AT SEATTLE GREGORY LANGADINOS, CASE NO. 2:23-cv-250 Plaintiff, ORDER v. WASHINGTON STATE BAR STATE BAR ASSOCIATION BOARD AMATANGEL, JULIE SHANKLAND, and WASHINGTON STATE SUPREME COURT, Defendants.

Plaintiff Gregory Langadinos moved to clarify the Court’s order on Defendants’ motions to dismiss, Dkt. No. 38, and its order extending the time to amend, Dkt. No. 43. Dkt. Nos. 44, 45. The Court finds further clarification is unnecessary and directs Langadinos to Federal Civil Rule of Procedure 15 and Local Civil Rule 15. Langadinos also asks the Court to exempt him from Local Civil Rule 15, arguing that his motion to clarify “serves as a preliminary description of his duty under LCR 15, to ‘how it differs from the pleading that it amends[,]’” and that he cannot find a proposed amended complaint illustrating how to “bracket or strike through the text to be deleted and [to] underline or highlight the text to be added[.]”

Dkt. No. 45 at 7. The Court finds there is no reason to exempt Langadinos from Local Civil Rule 15. Indeed, “[p]ro se litigants must follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants.” King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987), overruled on other grounds by Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896 (9th Cir. 2012). Accordingly, the Court DENIES Langadinos’s motion and orders him to follow Local

Civil Rule 15 when filing his motion for leave to amend and proposed amended complaint. The Court issues this order in advance of the May 10, 2024, noting date to provide Langadinos clarity before the filing deadline for a motion to amend his complaint, if any, consistent with the Court’s prior orders. See LCR 7(d)(3) (setting all unenumerated motions for consideration no earlier than the third Friday after filing). If Defendants wish to respond to Langadinos’s motion, they must respond to

the Court by May 6, 2024. Dated this 25th day of April, 2024. A Jamal N. Whitehead United States District Judge