Frick v. Dy ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 CHRISTOPHER FRICK, 9 Plaintiff, Case No. C22-801-JHC-MLP 10 v. ORDER 11 DR. DY, et al., 12 Defendants. 13 14 This is a prisoner civil rights action proceeding under Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal 15 Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Plaintiff Christopher Frick, proceeding pro se and in 16 forma pauperis (“IFP”), is a federal prisoner who is confined at the Federal Detention Center 17 (“FDC”) in SeaTac, Washington. This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ “Motion to 18 Extend Deadline to File a Responsive Pleading” (“Defendants’ Motion”). (Dkt. # 37.) 19 Defendants’ Motion seeks an extension of time to file a response to Plaintiff’s Second 20 Amended Complaint (“SAC”) (dkt. # 24) and his Motion for Temporary Release Order/and or 21 Preliminary Injunction (“Plaintiff’s Motion”) (dkt. # 33). (Dkt. # 37.) Defendants’ Motion 22 explains that the named Defendants in this matter are, or were, federal employees acting within 23 the scope of their employment at times relevant to the allegations in Plaintiff’s SAC, and that 24 1 they are currently awaiting a decision from the Department of Justice on their request for 2 representation.1 (Id. at 2.) Defendants’ Motion further indicates that a decision with respect to 3 Defendants’ representation request is expected within the next 60 days, and therefore, requests 4 that the Court extend the deadlines to file responses to the SAC and Plaintiff’s Motion by 60 5 days. (Id.) Plaintiff has not filed an opposition. 6 Based on Defendants’ Motion, and the process Defendants are required to engage in to 7 obtain personal representation, the Court concludes it is appropriate to grant Defendants an 8 extension of time to file their responses. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendants’ 9 Motion (dkt. # 37) is GRANTED in part. Defendants’ Response to Plaintiff’s Motion shall be 10 filed on or before January 2, 2023. The Clerk is directed to RE-NOTE Plaintiff’s Motion (dkt. 11 # 33) for this Court’s Consideration on January 6, 2023. 12 Based on Defendants’ representation that they received copies of Plaintiff’s summons 13 and complaint by certified mail between November 9, 2022, and November 12, 2022 (see dkt. 14 # 37 at 2), Defendants’ time to file a response to Plaintiff’s SAC shall be extended an additional 15 30 days, to be filed on or before February 13, 2023. 16 The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to Plaintiff, to the Office of the United 17 States Attorney for the Western District of Washington, and to the Honorable John H. Chun. 18 Dated this 14th day of November, 2022. 19 A 20 MICHELLE L. PETERSON United States Magistrate Judge 21 22 1 Defendants’ Motion represents that the assigned AUSA does not yet have authority to represent any Defendant in this lawsuit in his or her individual capacity but that the requested extension is brought on 23 behalf of Defendants J. Parker, Dr. Dy, Smith, Beihling, Fernandez, Jacquez, and Durano. (See dkt. # 37 at 1 n.1.) Defendants’ Motion represents that Defendant Scotty Bussell is no longer a Bureau of Prisons 24 employee, and that to the United States’ knowledge, he has not yet been served. (Id. at 1 n.2.)