Wright v. State of Washington

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: June 11, 2020
• Docket: 2:18-cv-00927
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES

9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 11 MATTHEW WRIGHT, 12

Plaintiff, 13 Case No. 2-18-cv-00927-RAJ v. 14 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION STATE OF WASHINGTON, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 I. INTRODUCTION 18 This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s objections to the Report and 19 Recommendation (“Report”) of Magistrate Judge Mary Alice Theiler. Dkt. # 84. Having 20 considered Plaintiff’s objections and the remaining record, the Court ADOPTS the 21 Report. 22 II. DISCUSSION 23 The background of this matter is detailed in Judge Theiler’s Report and will not be 24 repeated here. Dkt. # 84 at 2-9. Plaintiff Matthew Wright objects. First, he argues that 25 the Report incorrectly drew all reasonable inferences in favor of the moving parties 26 (defendants), which is not the standard on summary judgment. Dkt. # 85 at 1. Second, 27 he argues that the Report incorrectly recommended that Defendant Sarah Wright’s 1 motion for summary judgment should be granted, even though it was filed late. Id. at 2. 2 The Court finds the Report well-reasoned and Mr. Wright’s objections without 3 merit. The Report properly applies the summary judgment standard to the facts of this 4 case. And the magistrate did not err by accepting Ms. Wright’s late motion for summary 5 judgment. It is true that Ms. Wright filed her motion after the dispositive motion 6 deadline, and it is true that she did not show good cause or obtain the court’s consent 7 beforehand. Dkt. ## 56, 82. But, given the circumstances here, the Court accepts her 8 motion and adopts the Report. 9 District courts have broad discretion to consider late court filings, the timeliness of 10 which is governed by local rules. United States v. Heller, 551 F.3d 1108, 1111 (9th Cir. 11 2009). Under the local court rules of this district, parties must file dispositive motions 12 “[n]ot later than the deadline [set forth in the scheduling order], unless otherwise ordered 13 by the court.” Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 16(b) (emphasis added). Ultimately, “[t]he 14 court may, by order in a specific case, modify or forego any of the procedures or 15 deadlines set forth in this rule.” Id. 16(m)(2). Here, there is good reason to deviate from 16 the pretrial dispositive motion deadline. First, the magistrate found that this action, as a 17 whole, is frivolous with no apparent basis in law or fact. Dkt. # 84 at 24. Second, Ms. 18 Wright’s seven-page motion largely incorporates the arguments made by the Department 19 of Correction defendants, which was indeed timely filed. Dkt. # 82 at 1. Accepting 20 Ms. Wright’s motion allows the case to be tried on its merits and prevents a frivolous 21 action from advancing based on a technicality. Thus, the Court accepts Ms. Wright’s 22 motion for summary judgment. 23 Mr. Wright’s objection also fails because it was never previously raised. As far as 24 the Court can tell, this is the first time that Mr. Wright has argued that Ms. Wright’s 25 submission was late. The magistrate issued the Report more than three months after 26 Ms. Wright filed her late motion, yet Mr. Wright filed no response or motion in the 27 interim. Now, on an objection to a report and recommendation and after the conclusion 1 of briefing on the merits, he argues that Ms. Wright’s motion was improper. Dkt. #85 at 2 2. The Court is not required to consider evidence or argument presented for the first time 3 in a party’s objection to a magistrate’s recommendation, and it will not do so here. 4 United States v. Howell, 231 F.3d 615, 621-23 (9th Cir. 2000). 5 III. CONCLUSION 6 For the reasons stated above, and having considered Plaintiff’s objections, the 7 Court ORDERS as follows: 8 (1) The Report and Recommendation (Dkt. # 84) is ADOPTED; 9 (2) Defendants’ motions for summary judgment (Dkt. ## 51, 69, 83) are 10 GRANTED; 11 (3) Plaintiff’s amended complaint (Dkt. # 34) and this action are DISMISSED in 12 their totality as frivolous; and 13 (4) The Clerk shall send a copy of this Order to the parties and to Judge Theiler.

14 DATED this 11th day of June, 2020. 15 A 16 17 The Honorable Richard A. Jones 18 United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27