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

ORDER - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

RONALD AND DEBORAH KEAL,

Plaintiffs,

v.

STATE OF WASHINGTON et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. C05-5737RJB

ORDER STAYING ACTION AND

LIMITING FURTHER FILINGS

This Civil Rights action has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to

Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). The plaintiffs are proceeding in forma pauperis. (Dkt. # 4). This

action is becoming unnecessarily convoluted. The court is not chastising the parties for the filing of

motions but rather wishes to impose some case management protocols to assure an orderly process. 

On May 25th, 2006 Defendant Ellis moved to dismiss the amended complaint. (Dkt. # 134), 

On June 8th, 2006 Plaintiff’s moved for an extension of time to answer that motion. (Dkt. # 136). 

On June 9th multiple other defendants represented by the Attorney General”s Office filed a motion for

judgment on the pleadings. (Dkt. # 137). On June 15th defendant Mallogue filed a motion to

dismiss. (Dkt. # 139). On June 15th, Ms. Keal filed a declaration which has been mis-labeled as a

affidavit to dismiss. (Dkt.# 140). The document is actually a complaint that the defendants cannot

obtain certain evidence they are seeking. This filing is not a motion and will not be considered

further. On June 19th, 2006 Mr. Keal filed a response to the first motion to dismiss. (Dkt. # 141,

Case 3:05-cv-05737-RJB-JKA Document 147 Filed 06/30/06 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

27

28

ORDER - 2

(addressing 134)). This filing renders the first motion for an extension of time, (Dkt. # 136), moot. 

Mr. Keal also filed another motion for extension of time to respond to one of the remaining motions

to dismiss. (Dkt. # 142). On June 23rd, 2006 Defendant Ellis filed a reply regarding her motion to

dismiss. (Dkt. # 143). Her motion is now ripe for review. Defendant Mallogue on the 23rd of June

filed two pleadings. The first pleading simple re-notes her motion to dismiss for July 14th 2006. The

second pleading asks the court to deny Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time. (Dkt. # 144,

145). On June 28th, 2006 multiple defendants represented by the Attorney General’s Office filed a

motion asking that discovery be stayed until the motions to dismiss and motion for judgment on the

pleadings are ruled on. (Dkt. # 146). 

Thus, there are currently six outstanding motions that need to be ruled on before the case

proceeds further. Only two of those motions, the original motion to dismiss filed by defendant Ellis,

and Mr. Keal’s motion for an extension of time to respond to the motion for judgment on the

pleadings are actually ripe for review.

The court now ORDERS this action STAYED. The only filings that will be hereafter

allowed are:

1. Plaintiff’s response to the motion for judgement on the pleadings and

Plaintiff’s response to defendant Mallogue’s motion to dismiss. 

Plaintiff’s responsive brief should address both motions. The response

will be due July 21st, 2006. This grants plaintiff’s motion for an

extension of time. (Dkt. # 142). 

2. The defendant’s reply to the response on the motion for judgment on

the pleadings and Defendant Mallogues reply regarding her motion to

dismiss. These replies will be due on or before August 4th, 2006. 

The court will consider the motion for judgment on the pleadings and

the motion to dismiss filed by Defendant Mallogue on August 11h

,

2006.

3. This action is, in all other respects STAYED until the court issues a Report and

Recommendation regarding the outstanding motions to dismiss. This grants

defendants motion for a stay of discovery, (Dkt. # 146).

4. This STAY will lift on August 11th, 2006.

When the court issues a Report and Recommendation regarding a motion to dismiss t The

time line for objections to that Report and Recommendation will be set forth in that Report and

Case 3:05-cv-05737-RJB-JKA Document 147 Filed 06/30/06 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

27

28

ORDER - 3

Recommendation. The court will address defendant Ellis’s motion as soon as possible. 

The court does not usually consider any motion prior to the noting date. Review of this file

convinced the court that waiting until July 21st, 2006 to rule on the motion to stay discovery, (Dkt. #

146). would result in a situation where multiple other motions and cross motion would be filed and

the case would be overly cumbersome.

The clerk of court is directed to send copies of this order to plaintiffs and to counsel

representing the defendants, to remove Dockets number 136, 142, and 146 from the courts calendar.

DATED this 30th day of June, 2006.

/S/ J. Kelley Arnold

J. Kelley Arnold

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-05737-RJB-JKA Document 147 Filed 06/30/06 Page 3 of 3