Zhang et al v. United States of American et al, No. 2:2019cv01211 - Document 50 (W.D. Wash. 2022)
Court Description: ORDER denying Plaintiffs' 48 MOTION for Reconsideration. The Court ORDERS the Pro Bono Coordinator to identify qualified and experienced counsel from the Pro Bono Panel who can represent Plaintiffs, if they consent. THIS MATTER IS STAYED until April 25, 2022, or until an attorney appears on behalf of Plaintiffs, whichever is earlier. Signed by Judge Tana Lin. (LH) (cc: Pro Bono Panel Coordinator via ECF ad hoc)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Zhang et al v. United States of American et al Doc. 50 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 8 9 10 HUIFANG ZHANG et al., 11 Plaintiffs, 12 v. 13 CASE NO. 2:19-cv-01211-TL ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 On February 17, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. No. 48) in 17 which they (1) object to the Court’s referral of a discovery motion to U.S. Magistrate Judge S. 18 Kate Vaughan, (2) request a change of venue, and (3) seek permission to replead constitutional 19 claims that have been dismissed. For the reasons explained below, the Court REFERS this matter 20 to the Pro Bono Panel for potential representation and DENIES Plaintiffs’ Motion for 21 Reconsideration. 1 22 23 1 Defendant filed a response to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration without a request from the Court. Dkt. No. 49; see also LCR 7(h)(3). Accordingly, the Court did not consider that response when ruling on Plaintiffs’ motion. 24 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 I. BACKGROUND 2 Plaintiffs Huifang Zhang and Shunichi Takahashi are proceeding pro se and litigating this 3 case from abroad. They explain that the course of this case has made them feel “very depressed,” 4 and believe that they are the victims of “judicial bias, regional discrimination, and pro se 5 discrimination.” Dkt. No. 48 at 2, 3. There is clearly some confusion and suspicion regarding the 6 Court’s actions. So, the Court begins with some background to aid Plaintiffs’ understanding of 7 the rules and law within which the Court must act. 8 A. Assignment of cases 9 When a complaint is filed, the case is randomly assigned to a district court judge. Local 10 Civil Rule (referred to as “LCR”) 3(d). This case was re-assigned to Judge Lin when she joined 11 the Court in December. 12 B. 13 Referrals to magistrate judges A magistrate judge is also randomly assigned at the beginning of every case, and the 14 parties are asked whether they consent to having all proceedings conducted by the pre-assigned 15 magistrate judge. See Dkt. No. 30 at 2; see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). Any party may decline to 16 have all proceedings conducted by that magistrate judge, as the parties did in this case. Dkt. No. 17 35 at 2; see also Local Magistrate Judge Rules (referred to as “MJR”) 13(a) and (d). 18 Even when parties do not consent to a magistrate judge conducting all proceedings, the 19 district judge may still refer civil discovery matters (like Dkt. No. 37) to the pre-assigned 20 magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); MJR 3(a). Given the Court’s caseload and to help 21 move this case forward in a timely manner, the district court judge referred non-dispositive 22 motions (routine motions that will not resolve the case, such as motions relating to discovery) to 23 a magistrate judge for an initial determination. Magistrate Judge Vaughan was already randomly 24 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 2 1 pre-assigned to this case. 2 Any party may file an objection to the ruling of a magistrate judge; the 2 objection will be reviewed by the district judge. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); see also MJR 3(c). 3 C. 4 Pro Se Litigants Plaintiffs misunderstand the Court’s guidance that pro se parties will be held to the same 5 standards of conduct to which it holds attorneys. Pro se parties are expected to follow the same 6 rules of conduct or behavior as attorneys such as: filing requests for extensions in advance of 7 deadlines, making good faith efforts to meet and discuss discovery disagreements with opposing 8 counsel before filing a motion with the Court, and treating every person with dignity and respect. 9 However, the Court “liberally construe[s]” pro se their filings and holds their motions to “less 10 stringent standards” than those drafted by lawyers. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 11 (2007); see also Carroll v. San Diego Cty. Jail Sheriff, No. 3:19-cv-02073-AJB-NLS, 2020 WL 12 6544661, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2020) (construing a letter as a motion for reconsideration “in 13 light of [plaintiff’s] pro se status”). 14 15 II. DISCUSSION A. Appointment of Pro Bono Counsel 16 Plaintiffs have attempted to find legal representation. Dkt. No. 48 at 2. Plaintiffs also 17 state that they do not speak or understand legal English very well. Id. at 1. 3 Given this case’s 18 complexity and the particular circumstances, the Court believes that Plaintiffs would benefit 19 tremendously from appointment of pro bono counsel (at no additional cost) and this would serve 20 21 22 23 24 2 Plaintiffs suggest the timing of an earlier order mentioning Magistrate Judge Vaughan was “obviously . . . ‘arranged.’” Dkt. No. 48 at 1. The Court assures the parties that the timing of that order was completely coincidental. And when the Court recently referred the pending discovery motion to a magistrate judge (Dkt. No. 44), it was sent to Judge Vaughan not because of “bias” or “a good relation with Defendant” (Dkt. No. 48 at 2) but because she is the magistrate judge who was randomly pre-assigned at the beginning of this case. 3 The Court sympathizes with challenges pro se litigants may have in navigating the legal system, and this district tries to assist pro se parties by posting resources on its website regarding representing oneself in civil cases. See https://www.wawd.uscourts.gov/representing-yourself-pro-se. ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 3 1 the interests of justice. Therefore, the Court will order the district’s Pro Bono Coordinator to 2 identify qualified and experienced counsel from the Pro Bono Panel who can represent Plaintiffs, 3 if they consent. See General Order 16-20 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 8, 2020). 4 There is no guarantee that 4 an attorney or law firm will volunteer to work on this case. If available, such counsel shall be 5 identified no later than April 13, 2022, and Plaintiffs must decide by April 22, 2022, whether to 6 allow the selected attorney or firm to represent them in all further proceedings in this district. 7 The Court will also stay the case as it awaits Plaintiffs’ decision. The Court further notes that Plaintiff Zhang has signed the complaint and other filings 8 9 (including the motion for reconsideration) on behalf of herself as well as her two minor children, 10 I.G. and D.G. Under Ninth Circuit precedent, a non-attorney can represent herself or himself pro 11 se but cannot represent other people. Johns v. Cty. of San Diego, 114 F.3d 874, 876 (9th Cir. 12 1997) (“it is not in the interest of minors . . . that they be represented by non-attorneys”). 13 Appointment of counsel would also resolve this issue. 14 B. Motions to Reconsider Before ruling on the three motions filed together as a “Motion for Reconsideration” (Dkt. 15 16 No. 48), the Court observes that it cannot reconsider two of Plaintiffs’ three requests, simply 17 because there are no prior motions related to those requests for the Court to reconsider. 18 1. 19 Plaintiffs seek recusal of Magistrate Judge Vaughan. The Local Civil Rules lay out the 20 Motion to Recuse Magistrate Judge Vaughan proper procedure for filing a motion to recuse. LCR 3(f). The Court is also bound to follow these 21 22 23 24 4 Information about the Pro Bono Panel is available at https://www.wawd.uscourts.gov/attorneys/pro-bono-panel. Typically, pro se parties seek appointment of pro bono counsel through the program on their own, via a motion to appoint counsel. The Court can also refer cases to the program sua sponte, as it is doing here. ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 4 1 procedures. The parties may file an appropriate motion to recuse, should they choose to do so, 2 after the stay is lifted. 3 2. 4 Plaintiffs also seek transfer of this case to one of several California federal district courts. Motion to Change Venue 5 A Federal Tort Claims Act action can only be prosecuted in (a) “the judicial district where 6 plaintiff resides,” or (b) the judicial district where “ the act . . . occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1402(b). 7 Plaintiffs may file an appropriate motion to transfer the case, if they so choose, after the stay is 8 lifted. 3. 9 Motion to Replead Constitutional Claims Plaintiffs’ request to re-plead already-stricken constitutional claims is denied as untimely. 10 11 As Plaintiffs should be aware from their previous attempt to have the Court reconsider its 12 decision on these claims (Dkt. No. 31), under the Local Civil Rules, motions for reconsideration 13 must be filed “within fourteen days after the order to which it relates is filed.” LCR 7(h). 14 Plaintiffs file this motion over one year after the order initially striking their constitutional claims 15 was filed. See Dkt. No. 28 (order granting partial motion to dismiss filed on January 29, 2021). 16 Significantly, Plaintiffs have already filed a motion for reconsideration on this exact issue, which 17 was denied as untimely. Dkt. No. 34 (liberally construing Plaintiffs’ filing as a motion for 18 reconsideration of the partial motion to dismiss and denying it for being six months late). This 19 Court will not entertain further motions on issues it has already decided and reconsidered. 20 III. CONCLUSION 21 The Court ORDERS the Pro Bono Coordinator to identify qualified and experienced 22 counsel from the Pro Bono Panel who can represent Plaintiffs, if they consent. THIS MATTER IS 23 STAYED 24 earlier. until April 25, 2022, or until an attorney appears on behalf of Plaintiffs, whichever is ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 5 1 2 Further, for the reasons stated in this Order, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 Dated this 3rd day of March 2022. 5 6 7 A Tana Lin United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 6
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
