Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Borgeson v. Farrell, C18-0354-MJP-MAT. (2018)

Court: District Court, D. Washington Number: infdco20190124f32 Visitors: 2
Filed: Dec. 27, 2018
Latest Update: Dec. 27, 2018
Summary: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION MARSHA J. PECHMAN , Magistrate Judge . This is a civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. 1983. Plaintiff submitted his original complaint to this Court for filing on March 7, 2018, together with an application to proceed with this action in forma pauperis. ( See Dkt. 1.) Plaintiff was at that time confined at the Snohomish County Jail. ( See Dkt. 1-1 at 2.) After correcting deficiencies in both his in forma pauperis application and his original complain
More

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This is a civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff submitted his original complaint to this Court for filing on March 7, 2018, together with an application to proceed with this action in forma pauperis. (See Dkt. 1.) Plaintiff was at that time confined at the Snohomish County Jail. (See Dkt. 1-1 at 2.) After correcting deficiencies in both his in forma pauperis application and his original complaint, plaintiff's amended complaint was served on the lone defendant named therein, Snohomish County Corrections Officer Rebecca Farrell. (See Dkts. 2, 3, 7, 9, 10.) Defendant Farrell filed a timely answer to plaintiff's amended complaint on July 13, 2018, and on July 27, 2018 this Court issued an Order establishing pretrial deadlines in this matter, including a discovery deadline of October 26, 2018 and a dispositive motion filing deadline of November 26, 2018. (Dkts. 14, 18.)

On August 20, 2018, while still confined at the Snohomish County Jail, plaintiff filed a motion to compel discovery. (Dkt. 19.) On September 4, 2018, while his motion to compel was pending, plaintiff filed a notice of change of address indicating that he had been moved to the Skagit County Jail and asking that all mail be sent to him there beginning immediately. (Dkt. 22.) On the same date, plaintiff filed a motion for production of documents. (Dkt. 23.) Though plaintiff indicated he had been moved to Skagit County, both of plaintiff's September 4, 2018 submissions were apparently mailed from the Snohomish County Jail. (See id.) Nonetheless, pursuant to his notice of change of address, plaintiff's address was updated in the Court's records to reflect that he was confined at the Skagit County Jail. (See Dkt. 22.) On September 13, 2018, this Court issued an Order denying plaintiff's motions to compel and for production of documents. (Dkt. 24.) That Order was sent to plaintiff at his updated address, the Skagit County Jail. On September 25, 2018, the Order was returned by the post office with a notation indicating that the mail was not deliverable because plaintiff was no longer in custody. (See Dkt. 25.) To date, plaintiff has not provided the Court with an updated address.

Because over sixty days have passed since mail directed to plaintiff at his address of record was returned by the post office, and because plaintiff has not notified the Court of his current address, this action should be dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to prosecute pursuant to LCR 41(b)(2). Defendant's recently filed motion for an extension of the dispositive motion filing deadline, which was necessitated by plaintiff's failure to provide the Court and defense counsel with a current address (see Dkt. 26), should be stricken as moot. A proposed order accompanies this Report and Recommendation.

Objections to this Report and Recommendation, if any, should be filed with the Clerk and served upon all parties to this suit within twenty-one (21) days of the date on which this Report and Recommendation is signed. Failure to file objections within the specified time may affect your right to appeal. Objections should be noted for consideration on the District Judge's motions calendar for the third Friday after they are filed. Responses to objections may be filed within fourteen (14) days after service of objections. If no timely objections are filed, the matter will be ready for consideration by the District Judge on January 18, 2019.

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION

The Court, having reviewed the Report and Recommendation of the Honorable Mary Alice Theiler, United States Magistrate Judge, and the remaining record, hereby ORDERS:

(1) The Report and Recommendation is approved and adopted;

(2) This matter is DISMISSED, without prejudice, for failure to prosecute pursuant to LCR 41(b)(2);

(3) Defendant's motion for an extension of the dispositive motion filing deadline (Dkt. 26) is STRICKEN as moot; and

(4) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to plaintiff at his last known address, to counsel for defendant, and to Judge Theiler.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer