Major v. Washington State Department of Corrections

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: January 3, 2024
• Docket: 3:23-cv-05307
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3

4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 7 JON MAJOR, Case No. 3:23-cv-05307-TMC-MLP 8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR MORE 9 DEFINITE STATEMENT AND FOR v. RELIEF FROM DEADLINE 10 CHERYL STRANGE, 11 Defendant. 12 13

14 Before the Court is pro se Plaintiff Jon Major’s motions for more definite statement and 15 for relief from deadline. Dkt. 56, 57. For the following reasons, both motions are DENIED. 16 In his motion for a more definite statement, Mr. Major asks the Court to inform him 17 which statute of limitations is applicable to the refiling of his federal habeas petition. This issue 18 was not relevant to the dismissal of this action, and the motion therefore amounts to a request for 19 legal advice, which the Court cannot provide to litigants. See Jacobsen v. Filler, 790 F.2d 1362, 20 1365–66 (9th Cir. 1986) (“Imposing an obligation [on the court] . . . to give advice would entail 21 the district court’s becoming a player in the adversary process rather than remaining its referee”). 22 Mr. Major’s motion for relief from a deadline asks the Court to extend his time to file a 23 motion for reconsideration of the Court’s order dismissing this action, to allow time for the Court 24 1 to rule on his motion for a more definite statement, and to allow him time to first file a motion to 2 alter or amend the judgment of dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). This 3 motion is denied because the Court is ruling on his motion for more definite statement prior to

4 his deadline for filing a motion for reconsideration and because the interplay between the 5 deadlines set by this district’s local rules and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is not good 6 cause to extend any of the deadlines. Moreover, motions for reconsideration and motions to alter 7 judgments are generally treated as the same motion in the Ninth Circuit. See Am. Ironworks & 8 Erectors, Inc. v. N. Am. Constr. Corp., 248 F.3d 892, 898–99 (9th Cir. 2001) (“[A] motion for 9 reconsideration is treated as a motion to alter or amend judgment under Federal Rule of Civil 10 Procedure 59(e) if it is filed within [the time period that the Rule permits]. Otherwise, it is 11 treated as a Rule 60(b) motion for relief from a judgment or order.” (internal citation omitted)). 12 For the foregoing reasons, Mr. Major’s motions for a more definite statement and for

13 relief from a deadline are DENIED. Dkt. 56, 57. 14 The Clerk is directed to send uncertified copies of this Order to all counsel of record and 15 to any party appearing pro se at said party’s last known address. 16 Dated this 3rd day of January, 2024. 17 A 18 Tiffany M. Cartwright 19 United States District Court Judge

20 21 22 23 24