Sherman v. Kruse

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 9 AT SEATTLE 10 11 JANET SHELLMAN SHERMAN, CASE NO. 2:24-cv-00408-TL 12 Plaintiff(s), ORDER v. 13 JAMES A KRUSE et al., 14 Defendant(s). 15

17 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Janet Shellman Sherman’s Motion for 18 Discovery. Dkt. No. 65. For the reasons stated below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion. 19 Plaintiff requests that the Court compel the federal government to undertake two actions. 20 First, Plaintiff seeks to “rectify the absence of a State Investigation . . . that should have directly 21 examined Plaintiff’s car at the scene of Defendant Kruse’s Restaurant.” Id. at 2 (emphasis in 22 original). Plaintiff does not explain what, specifically, she means by “rectify.” Plaintiff’s motion, 23 however, suggests that Washington state authorities did not perform an adequate investigation 24 1 || into an alleged motor vehicle accident. See id.; see also Dkt. No. 58 at 5-6. In Washington, 2 || motor vehicle accidents are properly investigated by law enforcement agencies. See generally 3 |} RCW 46.52. By implication, then, it appears that Plaintiff's motion is requesting that the Court 4 || compel federal law enforcement do what state law enforcement allegedly did not. Second, 5 || Plaintiff seeks to have the Federal Bureau of Investigation “investigate an Ongoing surveillance 6 || crime in her home.” Dkt. No. 65 at 2. 7 Federal courts are not authorized to conduct or compel law enforcement investigations. 8 || See, e.g., Bullock v. Sheela, No. 1:14-cv-00092-DAD-EPG-PC, 2018 WL 1110778, at *3 (E.D. 9 || Cal. Mar. 1, 2018) (citing Wayte v. United States, 470 U.S. 598, 607 (1985)). Under the doctrine 10 || of separation of powers, such work is reserved to the Executive Branch of the federal 11 || government. /d. Here, Plaintiff's motion requests that the Court instigate two separate law 12 || enforcement investigations. This is beyond the Court’s purview, and the Court does not have the 13 || authority to compel them. 14 Therefore, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion for Discovery (Dkt. No. 65). 15 16 Dated this 16th day of September 2024. 17 7 | Z XC ‘ 18 Tana Lin United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24