Tabb v. NaphCare

W.D. Washington

Tabb v. NaphCare

DecidedApril 29, 2024

Docket3:21-cv-05541

StatusUnknown

This text of Tabb v. NaphCare (Tabb v. NaphCare) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Tabb v. NaphCare, (W.D. Wash. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 DANNY TABB, CASE NO. 3:21-cv-05541-LK-TLF 11 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND 12 v. RECOMMENDATION 13 NAPHCARE, et al., 14 Defendants. 15

16 This matter comes before the Court on United States Magistrate Judge Theresa L. Fricke’s 17 Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that the Court deny Plaintiff Danny Tabb’s 18 motion for leave to file an amended complaint. Dkt. No. 164. Having reviewed the R&R, the 19 remaining record, and the applicable law, the Court adopts the R&R and denies Mr. Tabb’s motion 20 to amend his complaint. Dkt. No. 157. 21 Mr. Tabb moved to amend his complaint to “add[] the status of confinement, specifically 22 being a pretrial detainee during the time of [the] incident.” Id. at 1. He also stated that he intends 23 to file an additional motion to amend at some point “as there are named John Doe and Jane Doe 24 defendants that will need to be identified.” Id. Defendants oppose the motion. Dkt. No. 158 at 4 1 (Pierce County Defendants arguing that the amendment would be futile because Mr. Tabb is 2 already identified in the record as a pretrial detainee); Dkt. No. 159 at 4 (NaphCare Defendants 3 arguing that the motion should be denied as futile because Mr. Tabb failed to file a proposed 4 amended complaint or state a claim even with the proposed amendment).

5 Judge Fricke recommended denying Mr. Tabb’s motion without prejudice because he did 6 not comply with Local Civil Rule 15’s requirement that he file his proposed amended complaint 7 and indicate how it differed from the current version of his complaint. Dkt. No. 164 at 1–2; see 8 also LCR 15. No party filed objections. 9 The Court agrees with Judge Fricke that Mr. Tabb has failed to comply with Local Civil 10 Rule 15, and his motion is denied without prejudice on that basis. Mr. Tabb is reminded that he is 11 required to comply with all applicable procedural rules, including but not limited to Local Civil 12 Rule 15. See Muñoz v. United States, 28 F.4th 973, 978 (9th Cir. 2022) (pro se litigants must adhere 13 to the same procedural requirements as other litigants). 14 The Court ADOPTS Judge Fricke’s R&R, Dkt. No. 164, and DENIES Mr. Tabb’s motion

15 to amend, Dkt. No. 157. 16 The Clerk is directed to send uncertified copies of this Order to all counsel of record and 17 to Mr. Tabb at his last known address. 18 Dated this 29th day of April, 2024. 19 A 20 Lauren King United States District Judge 21 22 23 24

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 DANNY TABB, CASE NO. 3:21-cv-05541-LK-TLF 11 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND 12 v. RECOMMENDATION 13 NAPHCARE, et al., 14 Defendants. 15

16 This matter comes before the Court on United States Magistrate Judge Theresa L. Fricke’s 17 Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that the Court deny Plaintiff Danny Tabb’s 18 motion for leave to file an amended complaint. Dkt. No. 164. Having reviewed the R&R, the 19 remaining record, and the applicable law, the Court adopts the R&R and denies Mr. Tabb’s motion 20 to amend his complaint. Dkt. No. 157. 21 Mr. Tabb moved to amend his complaint to “add[] the status of confinement, specifically 22 being a pretrial detainee during the time of [the] incident.” Id. at 1. He also stated that he intends 23 to file an additional motion to amend at some point “as there are named John Doe and Jane Doe 24 defendants that will need to be identified.” Id. Defendants oppose the motion. Dkt. No. 158 at 4 1 (Pierce County Defendants arguing that the amendment would be futile because Mr. Tabb is 2 already identified in the record as a pretrial detainee); Dkt. No. 159 at 4 (NaphCare Defendants 3 arguing that the motion should be denied as futile because Mr. Tabb failed to file a proposed 4 amended complaint or state a claim even with the proposed amendment).

5 Judge Fricke recommended denying Mr. Tabb’s motion without prejudice because he did 6 not comply with Local Civil Rule 15’s requirement that he file his proposed amended complaint 7 and indicate how it differed from the current version of his complaint. Dkt. No. 164 at 1–2; see 8 also LCR 15. No party filed objections. 9 The Court agrees with Judge Fricke that Mr. Tabb has failed to comply with Local Civil 10 Rule 15, and his motion is denied without prejudice on that basis. Mr. Tabb is reminded that he is 11 required to comply with all applicable procedural rules, including but not limited to Local Civil 12 Rule 15. See Muñoz v. United States, 28 F.4th 973, 978 (9th Cir. 2022) (pro se litigants must adhere 13 to the same procedural requirements as other litigants). 14 The Court ADOPTS Judge Fricke’s R&R, Dkt. No. 164, and DENIES Mr. Tabb’s motion

15 to amend, Dkt. No. 157. 16 The Clerk is directed to send uncertified copies of this Order to all counsel of record and 17 to Mr. Tabb at his last known address. 18 Dated this 29th day of April, 2024. 19 A 20 Lauren King United States District Judge 21 22 23 24

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Tabb v. NaphCare, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tabb-v-naphcare-wawd-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack