Johnson v. Electronic Transaction Consultants Corporation

HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE BRENDA M. JOHNSON, Plaintiff, 10 Case No. 19-cv-00337-RAJ v. 11 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION ELECTRONIC TRANSACTION CONSULTANTS CORPORATION and WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Defendants.

16 I. INTRODUCTION 17 This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion and objections to the Court’s orders dismissing the action and denying Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (“Motion”).

19 Dkt. # 36. For the same reasons set forth in the Court’s order denying Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, the Court DENIES the Motion.

21 The court directs Plaintiff not to file any further papers in C19-00377RAJ; and further directs the clerk not to accept any future filings from Plaintiff in the above- captioned matter, exclusive of an amended complaint. See DeLong v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 24 1144, 1148 (9th Cir. 1990) (stating that in dealing with litigants, the federal courts possess inherent power to regulate the activities of abusive litigants by imposing carefully tailored restrictions under the appropriate circumstances). If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint that states a cognizable claim for relief, the Court will dismiss the action with prejudice. See Leadsinger, Inc. v. BMG Music Pub., 512 F.3d 522, 532 (9th Cir. 2008) (“futility of amendment” justifies denial of leave to amend).

3 DATED this 4th day of October, 2019.

A The Honorable Richard A. Jones United States District Judge