Preview:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff's response to the Court's Order to Show Cause. Dkt. 23. The Court has considered pleading filed and the file herein. On August 1, 2007, Plaintiff, pro se, filed a complaint naming the Washington State Department of Agriculture as defendant. Dkt. 1. Plaintiff was granted in forma pauperis status on August 8, 2007. Dkt. 2. Plaintiff uses what appears to be a form for a Complaint. Dkt. 3. Plaintiff alleges that "Defendant's conduct is discriminatory with respect to the following: singling [him] out and treat[ing] [him] differently than the other permanent employees." Id. at 2. The Complaint alleges that "the agency provided no documentation that supported their need to terminate [his] employment." Id. Plaintiff references Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Id. Plaintiff's motion to have an attorney appointed for him was denied on September 10, 2007, and the motion for reconsideration of the denial of the motion to appoint counsel was denied on September 21, 2007. Dkts. 8 and 13. Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal on October 19, 2007, and the case was stayed v. WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Defendant. LEONARD ARTHUR WATLEY, Case No. C07-1190RJB Plaintiff, ORDER OF DISMISSAL UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA

ORDER Page - 1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

pursuant to Bradshaw v. Zoological Soc. of San Diego, 662 F.2d 1301 (9th Cir. 1981) (an order denying appointment of counsel in Title VII suit is appealable, falling squarely within "collateral order" exception to final judgment rule). Dkts. 15 and 17. On December 17, 2008, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed Plaintiff's appeal for failing to file his opening brief. Dkt. 21. On February 12, 2009, this Court issued an Order, noting that the Defendant had not been served in the approximately 79 days which had passed between the filing of the Complaint and the filing of the Notice of Appeal. Dkt. 22. Further, an additional 57 days had passed since the appeal was dismissed and the Complaint had not been served. Id. Accordingly, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (m), Plaintiff was ordered to serve the Defendant or show cause why this matter should not be dismissed without prejudice by March 13, 2009. Id. Plaintiff responded, arguing that, he was under the impression that all deadlines had been terminated once his case was on appeal. Dkt. 23. He asserts that he "has proof that the Defendant violated the employment laws that protect the Plaintiff." Id. He then states that "[i]f the Court will show prejudices by not allowing the Plaintiff counsel, then the Plaintiff has no choice but to yield to the prejudices of the Court, in which those prejudices have also denied the Plaintiff's civil rights." Id. No further pleading appears in the record. This opinion will first address Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel, to the extent that he makes one, and then his response to the order to show cause. A. APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

To the extent that Plaintiff again moves for appointment of counsel, his motion should be denied. Dkt. 23. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

Download 58086.pdf

Washington Law