Scott v. Havens

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 5 AT TACOMA RICHARD SCOTT, Case No. 2:25-cv-00648-RAJ-TLF 7 Plaintiff, v. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 8 MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE HAVENS, Defendant.

11 This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff Richard Scott’s motion to consolidate the instant case with Scott v. Devos, 3:25-cv-5312-DGE-SKV. Dkt. 12.

13 Pursuant to Western District of Washington Local Civil Rule 42(b)1, the parties are required to meet and confer prior to filing a motion to consolidate. Defendant states plaintiff did not confer with defendant prior to filing the instant motion; plaintiff has not filed a declaration or statement claiming otherwise. Dkts. 12, 14.

17 The Court reminds plaintiff that, “[p]ro se litigants must follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants,” Briones v. Riviera Hotel & Casino, 116 F.3d 379, 381 (9th Cir. 1997), including the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Western District of Washington’s Local Civil Rules. Although his pro se pleadings are held to a “less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers,” plaintiff still must meet the requirements of the rules. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). See 032725 WAWD Local Civil Rules - Clean.pdf also King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987) (“Pro se litigants must follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants.”) (citation omitted), overruled on other grounds, Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 2012 WL 3711591 (9th Cir. Aug.29, 2012).

5 Thus, plaintiff’s motion to consolidate is denied without prejudice for failure to follow Local Civil Rule 42(b).

7 Dated this 10th day of September, 2025.

A Theresa L. Fricke 11 United States Magistrate Judge