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

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR JUDGMENT AND OTHER RELIEF

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

_______________________________________)

JERRY BRENDEN, )

) Case No. C05-1681L

Plaintiff, ) 

v. )

) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

SELLEN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, ) MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AND

) OTHER RELIEF

Defendant. )

_______________________________________)

On April 3, 2006, the Court directed that, “[i]f plaintiff intends to voluntarily

dismiss his claims against Sellen, he shall file and serve a Praecipe containing the following

language:

The Clerk of Court is directed to renote plaintiff’s “Motion - 1. Orders and

Judgments 2. Third Party Plaintiff’s” (Dkt. # 39) on the Court’s calendar as a

motion for voluntary dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2). The motion

shall be noted for the fourth Friday after filing. 

On April 10, 2006, plaintiff filed an untitled document containing a copy of the above language. 

Dkt. # 41. In the absence of any clear indication of plaintiff’s intent, the Court directed the

Clerk of Court to renote plaintiff’s “Motion - 1. Orders and Judgments 2. Third Party

Plaintiff’s” (Dkt. # 39) on the Court’s calendar as a motion for voluntary dismissal pursuant to

Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2). In response, plaintiff filed a series of documents containing the words

“Correction and/or Misunderstading [sic]” in the title. It appears that plaintiff does not want to

Case 2:05-cv-01681-RSL Document 48 Filed 05/25/06 Page 1 of 3
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

1

 This document is the second amendment to plaintiff’s response and is entitled “Ademdems [sic]

& Ammendments [sic] - May 2, 2006 & May 3, 2003 Correction and/or Misunderstading [sic] Motion

1. Order and Judgment per Rule 12 for Court Calendar, May 5, 2006. To: A. Rule 56; B. Rule 60; C.

Rule 59, in forma pauperis. 2. Third Party Plaintiff’s A. Evidence; B. Contempt; C. Damages and

Relief.” 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR JUDGMENT AND OTHER RELIEF -2-

dismiss his complaint and instead seeks various forms of relief from the Court. 

Having reviewed the most recent iteration of plaintiff’s response (Dkt. # 471

) and

the remainder of the record, the Court finds as follows:

(1) On December 30, 2005, defendant filed a responsive pleading in this matter. 

Defendant is not, therefore, in default and plaintiff’s request for entry of default is DENIED.

(2) Although plaintiff requests judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12, he does not

identify the legal or factual basis for his motion. Plaintiff asserts that he was deprived of $39.12

in wages and seeks recovery of that amount plus “time loss paid since 5-4-00” and $9,000,000. 

The pleadings in this matter do not establish plaintiff’s right to judgment in his favor: his

motion under Rule 12 is therefore DENIED.

(3) At various places in his memorandum, plaintiff requests that the Court award him

“emergency funds” of $300 so that he can obtain medical treatment. Absent a showing that

defendant is liable to plaintiff, a monetary award would be premature and inappropriate. 

Plaintiff’s request for emergency funds is DENIED.

(4) Plaintiff has previously requested the appointment of an attorney in this case. See

Dkt. # 10 an 19. Those requests were denied and plaintiff has not provided any additional

evidence or argument that would justify reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge’s ruling. Dkt. 

# 29. Plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel is DENIED.

(5) Plaintiff requests “Attorney James McBride as a Third Party Plaintiff since delayed

payment of 03/14/01 was delayed to 07/26/02.” Although the standard for amending a pleading

is rather lenient (see Fed. R. Civ. P. 15; Kaplan v. Rose, 49 F.3d 1363, 1370 (9th Cir. 1994)),

there is no indication in the record that Mr. McBride has any claims to assert in this litigation or

Case 2:05-cv-01681-RSL Document 48 Filed 05/25/06 Page 2 of 3
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

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR JUDGMENT AND OTHER RELIEF -3-

that he should be considered plaintiff’s partner in litigation. To the extent plaintiff seeks to

amend his complaint to add Mr. McBride as a plaintiff, the request is DENIED.

(6) Finally, plaintiff seeks “time of ‘six months’ to bring forward any and all possible

‘Third Party Plaintiffs.’” No case management schedule or deadline for amending the pleadings

has been established in the case. 

For all of the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s various requests for relief as stated in

Dkt. # 47 are DENIED. The Clerk of Court is directed to request a Joint Status Report. 

DATED this 25th day of May, 2006.

A

Robert S. Lasnik

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-01681-RSL Document 48 Filed 05/25/06 Page 3 of 3