Heggem v. Snohomish County Corrections et al
Filing
247
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S PENDING MOTIONS striking 214 Motion to Compel; striking 216 Motion to Compel; denying 218 Motion for Reconsideration ; striking 219 Motion ; granting 220 Motion to Appoint Counsel, clerk directed to appoint counsel from pro bono panel ; denying 222 Motion for Order; striking 232 Motion to Compel; granting 234 Motion ; striking 236 Motion to Compel; striking 238 Motion for Leave by Judge Ricardo S Martinez.(RS)cc Heggem w/CD, Sharon Haas
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE
9
10
11
LARRY HEGGEM,
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Plaintiff,
v.
CASE NO. C11-1333RSM
ORDER ON PENDING MOTIONS
SNOHOMISH COUNTY CORRECTIONS, et
al.,
Defendants.
The Court, having reviewed the record in this case, does now find and ORDER:
(1) Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Dkt. # 220)
Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel (Dkt. # 220) is GRANTED. The Clerk shall
appoint counsel from the pro bono panel to represent plaintiff in further proceedings.
(2) Motion to Return Video (Dkt. # 234)
Plaintiff’s motion for the return of a CD/video he sent as evidence (Dkt. # 86) is GRANTED.
The Clerk shall return the Cd/video by regular mail to plaintiff’s address of record.
(3) Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. # 218)
Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of an Order which itself denied a motion for
reconsideration (Dkt. # 211) is DENIED as improper. There is no provision in the local rules for
reconsideration of an Order which denies a motion for reconsideration.
28
ORDER ON MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION - 1
1
(4) Motions to Compel (Dkt. ## 214, 216, 219, 232, 236, 238)
2
Plaintiff has filed numerous discovery motions. The motion to re-open discovery (Dkt. # 219) is
3
STRICKEN as moot. Discovery in this case remains open until May 13, 2012. Dkt. # 224. The five
4
motions to compel (Dkt. ## 214, 216, 232, 236, 238) are all STRICKEN for failure to comply with
5
meet-and-confer requirements in Fed.R.Civ.P. 37 and Local Rule CR 37. The motions may be renewed
6
by counsel as appropriate.
7
(5) Motion for a Physical and Mental Health Examination (Dkt. # 222)
8
Plaintiff’s motion for a Rule 35 examination is DENIED as improper. As plaintiff has requested
9
imaging of his abdomen in addition to his shoulders, neck, and wrist (areas that he alleges were injured
10
by excessive force), it appears that plaintiff is actually requesting medical care, not a Rule 35
11
independent examination for the purposes of this lawsuit. Counsel may renew the request for a Rule 35
12
examination as appropriate.
13
DATED this 27 day of November 2012.
A
14
15
RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER ON MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION - 1
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
