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 SEATTLE

ALLAN PARMELEE,

Petitioner,

v.

SANDRA CARTER,

Respondent.

CASE NO. C05-2028JLR-MAT

ORDER

This matter comes before the court on Petitioner Allan Parmelee’s “Motion to

Appeal” (Dkt. # 21) a March 20, 2006 order from the Honorable Mary Alice Theiler. 

Judge Theiler’s order (Dkt. # 20) denied Mr. Parmelee’s request for a 216-month

extension of time to respond to Respondent’s answer to his habeas petition. Judge

Theiler denied his request, and ordered Mr. Parmelee to show cause why the court should

not bar him from filing a response to Respondent’s answer as a sanction for “wasting the

court’s time.” The court treats Mr. Parmelee’s motion as an objection to a nondispositive order of a magistrate judge under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). The court has

considered Mr. Parmelee’s motion, the pleadings that preceded his motion, and

Case 2:05-cv-02028-JLR Document 27 Filed 04/05/06 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

Respondent’s pleading in response to Judge Theiler’s order to show cause. For the

reasons stated below, the court DENIES the motion.

Mr. Parmelee is incarcerated at the Clallam Bay Correctional Center (“CBCC”),

and is frustrated with CBCC’s alleged refusal to provide reasonable access to legal

research materials. He has challenged CBCC’s legal access program in a separate

lawsuit. When he filed the instant habeas petition, he requested that Judge Theiler stay

the petition until the resolution of his challenge to CBCC’s legal access program. Judge

Theiler denied the request, noting that Mr. Parmelee had prepared a cogent habeas

petition, a strong indication that he was able to effectively pursue his habeas claim

despite CBCC’s legal access program. Judge Theiler noted that Mr. Parmelee could

renew his request for a stay or for additional time to prepare materials if he could

demonstrate a need.

In response to Respondent’s answer to his habeas petition, Mr. Parmelee requested

a 216-month extension of time. Mr. Parmelee reasoned that because it had recently taken

him four months to obtain a copy of a single case at CBCC, it would take him at least 50

times as long to obtain copies of the 50 cases and statutes Respondent cited in its answer

to his habeas petition. Judge Theiler denied his request in the order now before this

court.

Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), on proper objection from a party, the court “may

modify or set aside any portion of the magistrate judge’s order found to be clearly

erroneous or contrary to law.” Mr. Parmelee’s objections fall well short of this standard. 

It was manifestly not erroneous or contrary to law to deny Mr. Parmelee an 18-year

extension of time. The court’s review of Mr. Parmelee’s request reveals that Mr.

Parmelee has not considered that both this court and Judge Theiler face an enormous

caseload, and that adding frivolous motions to that caseload compounds an already

Case 2:05-cv-02028-JLR Document 27 Filed 04/05/06 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

onerous burden. The court assumes that Mr. Parmelee sincerely believes that CBCC is

denying him appropriate access to legal services. That belief, however, provides no

justification for filing a motion that requests absurd relief.

As to Judge Theiler’s order to show cause, the court finds that order consistent

with Judge Theiler’s inherent power to regulate proceedings. At present, Judge Theiler

has ordered Mr. Parmelee to show cause why he should not be barred from entering a

response to Respondent’s answer as a sanction for his frivolous request. It is not clear

whether Mr. Parmelee has responded to that order, but it is clear that Judge Theiler has

made no decision regarding sanctions. Until Judge Theiler renders a decision, Mr.

Parmelee therefore has no basis for appealing the order to show cause. 

 For the foregoing reasons, the court DENIES Mr. Parmelee’s motion (Dkt. # 21). 

 Dated this 4th day of April, 2006.

A JAMES L. ROBART

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-02028-JLR Document 27 Filed 04/05/06 Page 3 of 3