Rubio v. Mason County

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 BRANDON J. RUBIO, 9 Plaintiff, Case No. C23-5435-JLR-SKV 10 v. ORDER RE: RECENT FILINGS 11 MASON COUNTY, et al., 12 Defendants. 13

14 Plaintiff proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights 15 action relating to his confinement at Mason County Jail. Plaintiff recently filed an “Order to 16 Show Cause for a Preliminary Injunction & Temporary Restraining”, along with a declaration 17 and memorandum in support. Dkt. 29. Plaintiff also filed a Request for Production of 18 Documents. Dkt. 28. Having considered these filings, the Court herein advises and finds as 19 follows: 20 (1) Plaintiff’s “Order to Show Cause for a Preliminary Injunction & Temporary 21 Restraining”, Dkt. 29, is construed as a motion seeking a preliminary injunction and is noted for 22 consideration on January 12, 2024. The Court further directs Defendants to file and serve a 23 1 response to Plaintiff’s construed motion for preliminary injunctive relief on or before January 8, 2 2024. Plaintiff may file and serve a reply on or before the January 12, 2024 noting date. 3 (2) Plaintiff also filed a Request for Production of Documents. Dkt. 28. However, as 4 the Court previously advised, see Dkt. 18, discovery should, in general, be conducted between

5 the parties. Plaintiff is herein advised that requests for discovery should be sent to opposing 6 parties, not to the Court. The Court’s role is limited to resolving disputes regarding discovery if 7 they arise. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1) (motion to compel discovery must include a certification 8 that the movant conferred with opposing counsel or made a good faith effort to do so) and Local 9 Civil Rule 37(a)(1) (good faith effort to confer requires a face-to-face meeting or telephone 10 conference). See also Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 54 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (pro se 11 litigants remain bound by the rules of procedure) (citing King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th 12 Cir. 1987)). The Court, for these reasons, directs the Clerk to return the Request for Production 13 of Documents, Dkt. 28, to Plaintiff. 14 (3) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to the parties and to the

15 Honorable James L. Robart. 16 Dated this 4th day of December, 2023. 17 A 18 S. KATE VAUGHAN United States Magistrate Judge 19

20 21 22 23