Durham v. Wilke

1 EASTERUN. SD.I SDTIRSITCRTI COTF CWOAUSRHTI NGTON Sep 09, 2025 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON JOHN-MICHAEL RAY DURHAM, NO. 2:24-CV-0371-TOR 8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING CONSTRUED 9 v. MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT COMPLAINT AND MOTION FOR ETHAN WILKE, OFFICER SUBPOENA AND TEMPORARY BAXTER, JOHN DOE, JANE DOE RESTRAINING ORDER 1415 E. HARTSON AVE, SPOKANE, WA, ZIP 99202; JANE DOE, 1413 E HARTSON AVE, SPOKANE WA ZIP 99202, Defendants.

15 BEFORE THE COURT are Plaintiff’s Construed Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Pleadings (ECF No. 32) and Plaintiff’s Motion for Issuance of Subpoenas and Temporary Restraining Order (ECF No. 33). These matters were submitted for consideration without oral argument. The Court has reviewed the record and files herein and is fully informed. For the reasons discussed below, both of Plaintiff’s Motions are DENIED.

1 Plaintiff filed his original complaint on October 29, 2024 (ECF No. 1) alleging various claims against two law enforcement officers, Ethan Wilke and Officer Baxter, as well as several Jane Does and John Does, related to an incident that occurred on October 25, 2024 at Liberty Park Terrace Apartments. ECF No. 1. The Court granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on July 23, 2025 dismissing all of Plaintiff’s claims. ECF No. 27. Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal of the Court’s Order on July 28, 2025. ECF No. 29.

8 On August 12, 2025, Plaintiff filed both a Supplemental Complaint (“SC”) and a motion for issuance of subpoenas and a temporary restraining order against Clifford Butler, the property manager of Liberty Park Terrace Apartments. ECF Nos. 32, 33. The SC contains a copy of an email Plaintiff sent to what appears to be the Spokane County Sheriff’s Office and other unknown recipients demanding the identities of law enforcement officers that Plaintiff alleges served a subpoena duces tecum to Encompass Visitation Services on July 2, 2025. ECF No. 32 at 1.

15 Reviewing Plaintiff’s motion and supporting declaration, it appears Plaintiff sought to serve a subpoena duces tecum to Clifford Butler for the release of Liberty Park Terrace Apartment’s surveillance footage that was taken on August 8 and August 9, 2025. ECF No. 32 at 9. Plaintiff alleges the footage shows certain criminal activity that took place on the property from August 8-9, 2025. Id. Plaintiff also alleges that the Spokane County Sheriff’s Office intercepted and withheld the subpoena. ECF No. 33-1 at 1.

2 Plaintiff now moves the Court to issue a subpoena duces tecum to Clifford Butler compelling the production of the surveillance footage at issue and grant a temporary restraining order “to prohibit harassment, intimidation, or retaliatory contact by Defendant Butler, Liberty Park Terrace Staff, or affiliated agents.” ECF No. 33 at 1.

7 As an initial matter, Plaintiff never sought leave from the Court to file a supplemental complaint in this action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(d). Therefore, the Court construes Plaintiff’s filing of the SC (ECF No. 32) as a motion for leave to file supplemental pleadings. After reviewing the SC and related filings, it does not appear that any of the conduct Plaintiff now complains of relates to his original complaint. Supplemental pleading cannot be used to introduce a “separate, distinct and new cause of action.” Planned Parenthood of S. Arizona v. Neely, 130 F.3d 14 400, 402 (9th Cir. 1997) (internal quotation and citation omitted). Plaintiff’s SC here appears to involve a new and distinct action against different defendants.

16 Additionally, Plaintiff’s request for an issuance of a subpoena and a temporary restraining order also appears to be completely unrelated to his original complaint. See Pac. Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Queen's Med. Ctr., 810 F.3d 631, 638 (9th Cir. 2015) (“[T]here must exist a relationship between the injury claimed in a motion for injunctive relief and the conduct alleged in the underlying || complaint.”)

2|| ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 3 1. Plamtiffs Construed Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Pleadings 4 (ECF No. 32) is DENIED.

5 2. Plaintiffs Motion for Issuance of Subpoenas and Temporary Restraining 6 Order (ECF No. 33) is DENIED.

7 The District Court Executive is directed to enter this Order and furnish || copies to counsel and Plaintiff. The file remains CLOSED.

9 DATED September 9, 2025. | Haun 022; NS ca Ip ST Wa. 0 hk es 11 SMTA THOMAS O. RICE <> United States District Judge ORDER DENYING CONSTRUED MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT COMPLAINT AND MOTION FOR SUBPOENA AND TEMPORARY