Pierce County Republican Party v. Crowl

Opinion

1 2 3

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 7 PIERCE COUNTY REPUBLICAN CASE NO. C25-5251 BHS 8 PARTY, ORDER 9 Plaintiff, v. 10 ERIC EUGENE CROWL, 11 Defendant. 12

13 THIS MATTER is before the Court on pro se defendant Eric Crowl’s “motion to 14 protect material witness Lisa Olson,” Dkt. 40. Crowl asks the Court to issue a Federal 15 Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) protective order restraining plaintiff Pierce County 16 Republican Party “from further intimidating harassing or excluding Lisa Olson from 17 party activities based on her status as a witness or her free association with defendant 18 Crowl,” and “directing PRCP to cease any actions that may be construed as witness 19 tampering[.]” Id. at 3. He contends that plaintiff is punishing Olson for her association 20 with him, and seeks to ensure that she can “testify without fear of reprisal.” Id. 21 22 1 The motion is improper, and denied, for several reasons. First, as the Court 2 previously explained, Crowl cannot represent any person or entity other than himself. 3 Dkt. at 2–3. Second, Crowl has cited no authority for the relief he seeks on behalf of non-

4 party Olson. His motion mentions but does not quote or discuss Rule 26(c), but he has 5 cited no authority1 for his requested relief. Nor has he shown that plaintiff is 6 “intimidating” Olson. His motion essentially seeks a mandatory injunction requiring the 7 Pierce County Republican Party to allow Olson to remain or become a member and to 8 participate in its affairs. Even if Olson was a party and Crowl was her attorney, he has not

9 shown that she is entitled to such an injunction, factually or legally. 10 The motion is wholly without merit and it is DENIED. Crowl is pro se, but he is 11 subject to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules for the Western 12 District of Washington, including Rule 11. See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 54 (9th Cir. 13 1995) (“Although we construe pleadings liberally in their favor, pro se litigants are bound

14 by the rules of procedure.”). 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 Dated this 17th day of July, 2025. A 17 18 BENJAMIN H. SETTLE United States District Judge 19

20 1 Crowl’s nine-page reply, Dkt. 51, includes legal citations and more factual detail, but new arguments and evidence presented for the first time in a Reply are waived. See 21 Docusign, Inc. v. Sertifi, Inc., 468 F.Supp.2d 1305, 1307 (W.D. Wash. 2006) (citing United States v. Patterson, 230 F.3d 1168, 1172 (9th Cir. 2000); and Thompson v. 22 Comm'r, 631 F.2d 642, 649 (9th Cir. 1980)).