Humphreys v. Burgher

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA Scott Wesley Humphreys, CASE NO. 3:18-cv-05736-RJB-JRC Plaintiff, ORDER ON MOTION FOR v. PROTECTIVE ORDER Burgher, et al., Defendants.

13 Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, initiated this action pursuant to 42 14 U.S.C. § 1983. Presently pending before the Court is plaintiff’s motion for protective order. Dkt.

15 54. Defendants filed a response. Dkt. 55.

16 In the motion, plaintiff states “[t]his motion is pursuant to the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” Dkt. 54 at 1. Plaintiff states that he was threatened with a transfer.

18 It appears that plaintiff is requesting a protective order to prevent defendants from transferring him to another facility. Dkt. 54. Attached to his motion, plaintiff filed grievances related to a disciplinary hearing on June 11, 2019. Dkt. 54 at 3-5.

21 The Court has broad discretionary powers to control discovery. Little v. City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988). Upon showing of good cause, the Court may deny or limit discovery “to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c); see also GTE Wireless, Inc. v. Qualcomm, Inc., 192 2 F.R.D. 284, 285–86 (S.D. Cal. 2000).

3 Discovery has not yet started in this case, and currently pending before the Court is defendants’ motion to dismiss. See Dkt. 44. In the motion, plaintiff does not allege any facts which would warrant a protective order. Dkt. 54. There appears to be no relationship between plaintiff’s complaint in this case and his request for protective order. Therefore, at this time, the Court that the motion is premature.

8 The Court also notes that prisoners have no liberty interest in avoiding being transferred to another prison, see Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 245 (1983), and it appears that the allegations in his motion and attached grievances arose after he filed this lawsuit and are not related to this matter, see Dkt. 21. To the extent that plaintiff attempts to raise a new constitutional claim, plaintiff is advised that if he seeks to raise claims that occurred after he filed this case, he must file a separate complaint.

14 Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for protective order (Dkt. 54) is denied without prejudice.

15 Dated this 5th day of August, 2019.

A J. Richard Creatura United States Magistrate Judge