U.S. Federal District Court, Carr v. Reed et al and Carr v. Oregon et al

In May of 2007 I filed a Federal Civil Case concerning numerous violations in Western Washington. All papers are filed electronically so it is easy for me to post everything in the case history:

Complaint, Doc 1, May 23, 2007.
Sample Request for Waiver of Service, May 24, 2007
Order Regarding Discovery and Depositions, Doc 2, May 24, 2007
Order Regarding Initial Disclosures, Joint Status Report and Settlement, Doc 3, May 24, 2007
Notice of Appearance, Clark County defendants, Doc 4, June 1, 2007
Notice of Appearance, state's defendants, Doc 5, June 7, 2007
Affidavit of Waiver of Service, Clark County Defendants and the Honorable Fairhurst, Doc 6, June 14, 2007
PRAECIPE TO ISSUE SUMMONS re [1] Complaint (for McKenna), Doc 7, June 18, 2007
PRAECIPE TO ISSUE SUMMONS re [1] Complaint (for Reed), Doc 8, June 18, 2007
PRAECIPE TO ISSUE SUMMONS re [1] Complaint (for Penoyar), Doc 9, June 20, 2007
Summons for Sam Reed from the clerk though it does not look like this will be necessary.
Affidavit of Waiver of Service for remaining state's defendants, Doc 10, June 30, 2007
Modified Appearance for Clark County defendants, Doc 11, June 30, 2007
Answer for state's defendants, Doc 12, July 23, 2007
Answer for Clark County defendants, Doc 13, July 23, 2007
Motion to Supplement COMPLAINT, Doc 14, July 30, 2007
Motion to Stay Discovery, Doc 15A, August 10, 2007
Proposed Order to Stay Discovery, Doc 15B, August 10, 2007
Declaration in Support of Discovery Stay, Doc 16, August 10, 2007
Declaration of Plaintiff, Doc 17, August 15, 2007
Plaintiff's Initial Disclosures, Doc 18, August 15, 2007
Order Granting Motion to Supplement Complaint, Doc 19, August 15, 2007
Clark County Defendants' Initial Disclosures, Doc 20, August 15, 2007
Amended Complaint, Doc 21, August 15, 2007
PRAECIPE TO ISSUE SUMMONS re [21] Complaint (for Briggs), Doc 22, August 15, 2007
Plaintiff's Opposition to Motion to Stay Discovery, Doc 23, August 19, 2007
Joint Status Report and Discovery Plan, Doc 24, August 22, 2007
Defendants' Initial Disclosures, Doc 24, part 2, August 22, 2007, initially emailed August 15, 2007, for Other Defendants
Plaintiff's Discovery Request for Documents and Interrogatories, emailed to Defendants August 19, 2007, Doc 24, part 3, August 22, 2007
Order granting Delay in Discovery, Doc 25, August 29, 2007
State's Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgement, Doc 26, August 30, 2007
State's Defendants' Proposed Order, Doc 26A, August 30, 2007
State's Defendants' Declaration, Doc 27, August 30, 2007
State's Defendants' Exhibits, Doc 27A, August 30, 2007
Notice of Appearance, Wanda Briggs, CJC, Doc 28, August 31, 2007
Clark County Defendants Motion for Summary Judgement, Doc 29, August 31, 2007
Clark County Defendants Proposed Order, Doc 29A, August 31, 2007
Clark County Defendants Declaration, Doc 30, August 31, 2007
Clark County Defendants Declaration, Exhibit 1, Doc 30-2, August 31, 2007, Letter of January 7, 2007
Clark County Defendants Declaration, Exhibit 2, Doc 30-3, August 31, 2007, Denied Order, November 12, 2004, now sealed, this link is to a redacted version.
Clark County Defendants Declaration, Exhibit 3, Doc 30-4, August 31, 2007, Amended Order, January 5, 2005, this version was not redacted. The link is to the properly redacted version of October 4, 2007 (document 48).
Clark County Defendants Declaration, Exhibit 4, Doc 30-5, August 31, 2007, Clarified Order, January 6, 2005
Clark County Defendants Declaration, Exhibit 5, Doc 30-6, August 31, 2007, Denied Order, January 19, 2005
Service of Summons on Wanda Briggs, CJC, on August 27, 2007, Doc 31, September 1, 2007
Plaintiff's Motion for Order to Limit Identifying Information, Doc 32, September 6, 2007
Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Submit Combined Brief (up to 22 pages), Doc 33, September 12, 2007
Order Granting Leave to Submit Combined Overlength Reply Brief (up to 22 pages), Doc 34, September 14, 2007
Answer for Wanda Briggs, Doc 35, September 17, 2007
Plaintiff's Declaration, Doc 36, September 24, 2007
Plaintiff's Declaration, Doc 36-2, Exhibit A, NOA Dec 10, 2004
Plaintiff's Declaration, Doc 36-3, Exhibit B, Orders 2004 and 2005
Plaintiff's Declaration, Doc 36-4, Exhibit C, Orders 2005
Plaintiff's Declaration, Doc 36-5, Exhibit E, Brief, May 2005
Plaintiff's Combined Reply Brief, Doc 37, September 24, 2007
Plaintiff's Motion to Speed Discovery Process, Doc 38, September 26, 2007
Clark County Defendants Reply Brief, Doc 39, September 27, 2007
Order Denying Limits on Identifying Information, ¹ Doc 40, September 27, 2007
Motion For Summary Judgement, CJC, Doc 41, September 27, 2007
Proposed Order, Summary Judgement, CJC, Doc 41-2, September 27, 2007
Motion to Extend Stay, CJC, Doc 42, September 27, 2007
Proposed Order, Extend Stay, CJC, Doc 42-2, September 27, 2007
State's Defendants' Reply Brief, Doc 43, September 27, 2007
Court's Minute Order, new Noting Dates, Doc 44, October 2, 2007, the content of the order was in the email, so this file was produced from that email.
Clark County Defendants' Revised Declaration, Doc 45, October 3, 2007.
Partially Redacted, the link is to the properly redacted version, Doc 45-2 Exhibit, October 3, 2007.
Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Submit Revised Combined Brief (up to 32 pages), Doc 46, October 3, 2007.
Order Denying Motion for Leave to Submit Revised Combined Brief (up to 32 pages), Doc 47, October 4, 2007.
Properly Redacted Exhibit, Doc 48, October 4, 2007, Denied Order, November 12, 2004.
Clark County's Defendants' Opposition to Speed Discovery, Doc 49, October 8, 2007.
State's Defendants' Opposition to Speed Discovery, Doc 50, October 8, 2007.
Joint Motion to Seal Document 45-2, Doc 51, October 8, 2007.
Plaintiff's Opposition to Extension of Stay, Doc 52, October 8, 2007.
Order Sealing Document 45-2, Doc 53, October 11, 2007.
Plaintiff's Reply Supporting Motion to Speed Discovery, Doc 54, October 11, 2007.
Order Extending Stay and Denying Motion to Speed Discovery, Doc 55, October 12, 2007.
Plaintiff's Declaration, Doc 56, October 15, 2007.
Exhibit C, letter to CJC, Oct 16, 2006, Doc 56-2, October 15, 2007.
Exhibit E, letter from CJC, June 14, 2007, Doc 56-3, October 15, 2007.
Exhibit F, letter from CJC, June 25, 2007, Doc 56-4, October 15, 2007.
Exhibit G, Petition of June 2, 2006, Doc 56-5, October 15, 2007.
Plaintiff's Reply Brief, Doc 57, October 15, 2007.
Briggs' Reply Brief, Doc 58, October 18, 2007.
Pearson v. Brace Civ S-06-2505 FCD DAD, Doc 58-2, October 18, 2007.
Copy of document 47, Doc 58-3, October 18, 2007.
Callner's Declaration, Doc 59, October 18, 2007.
Plaintiff's Notice of Pending Surreply, Doc 60, October 18, 2007.
Plaintiff's Surreply, Doc 61, October 22, 2007.
Joint Motion to Seal Document 30-3, Exhibit 2, Doc 62, October 30, 2007.
Proposed Order to Seal Document 30-3, Exhibit 2, Doc 62-2, October 30, 2007.
Order Granting Summary Judgement, Doc 63, November 5, 2007.
Order Sealing Exhibit, Doc 64, November 6, 2007.
Case Closed, Doc 65, November 6, 2007.
Appeal to Ninth Circuit Court
Notice of Appeal, Doc 66, November 15, 2007.
Docketing Statement, Doc 67, November 15, 2007.
Representation Statement, Doc 68, November 15, 2007.
Certificate of Record, Doc 69, November 16, 2007.
Appeal Notification Packet, Doc 70, November 16, 2007.
Record on Appeal, Doc 70-2, November 16, 2007.
Email with case number 07-35962 in Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, November 26, 2007.
Appeal Time Schedule Order, Doc 71, November 26, 2007.
Modified Appearance for state's defendants, Doc 72, January 15, 2008
Copy of Ninth Circuit Court's Memorandum, Doc 73, March 3, 2009
Copy of Ninth Circuit Court's Order, Doc 74, March 20, 2009
Copy of Ninth Circuit Court's Mandate, Doc 75, March 31, 2009
Revised Order Dismissing without Prejudice, Doc 76, April 1, 2009.
Copy of Supreme Court decision denying the writ of certiorar, Doc 77, June 18, 2009.

Ninth Circuit Appeal, Washington

I have submitted my brief to the Ninth Circuit Court. Mailed on Dec 31 as mailing earlier just gives more time to the state. The copies came to 17 pounds. Yikes. Had to be mailed as the Portland court does not accept filings. Too bad they haven't adopted electronic filing like the District Court. My brief is nothing really interesting, just restates the arguments made to the District Court (but in a forum where they might be receptive). The excerpt of record (optional for me) was over 200 pages and five bound single sided copies. That is where most of the weight came from.

On December 31, 2007, I mailed a Brief (eight copies and the original) to the court and two copies to each of the opposing counsel.
On January 11, 2008, I submitted a motion asking that a Portland panel be assigned to this case so that any hearings will be in Portland, OR.
On January 15, 2008, the state's counsel submitted a Notice of a different attorney in this matter.
On January 28, 2008, the Clark County defendants submitted their very short Brief, basically deferring to state's defendants.
On January 30, 2008, the state's defendants submitted their Brief which I got on February 2, 2008.
On Feburary 15, 2008, I mailed my Reply Brief (eight copies and the original) to the court and two copies to each of the opposing counsel.
On March 3, 2009, the Ninth Circuit Court gave a preliminary opinion with doc 1-1 - 6829886.
Along with a standard form of rights and such, doc 1-2 - 6829886.
On March 13, 2009, the I filed a Motion for a Panel Rehearing, doc 2-2 - 6844913.
along with the required copy of the Memorandum, doc 2-1 - 6844913.
On March 20, 2009 the Ninth Circuit Court issued their Order denying the Petition for Rehearing and closing the case.
On March 31, 2009 the Ninth Circuit Court issued their Mandate.
On June 15, 2009 the Ninth Circuit Court recorded the Supreme Court decision denying the writ of certiorar.

So, it looks like the Ninth Circuit has done the safe and cautious thing, which is nothing at all, but they also gave me the most flexability that is possible (dismissing without prejudice which permits me to seek the same relief elsewhere if appropriate). Next stop will be the U.S. Supreme Court which is almost certainly a symbolic gesture as they get far too many cases to seriously consider even a small fraction of what is presented to them. However, I need to make the effort just for a sense of completeness and standing up for what is right (even if it is a futile effort).

U.S. Supreme Court, Washington

The Supreme Court has some really odd rules. I had to submit a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis to submit on 8.5 by 11 paper.

On March 21, 2009 I sent off my petition as well as a copy to the two counsel. It was prececded by the required motion, but I need to sanitize it to remove personal information.
On March 26, 2009 the clerk assigned to my last name, Ms. Blalock, rejected the filing as it combined two requests for write (SC Rule 12.4).
On April 17, 2009 I sent off a revised petition asking only for a Writ of Certiorari. I can ask for an Extraordianry Writ if they deny this petition.
On April 22, 2009, the filing was accepted and docketed as case # 08-9901 with a notice for me to send to the other parties.
On April 28, 2009, I filed a Notice of Change of Address and Consent to Electronic Service.

Oregon Suit

On March 31, 2008 I started the Oregon case.

Doc1 - I filed the complaint. The html version has a link to a pdf text version and the court's scanned pdf version.
Doc2 - On March 31, 2008, the clerk filed the standard assignment order.
Doc3 - On April 7, 2008 I filed a brief motion to get access to CM/ECF.
Doc4 (no document) - On April 9, 2008 the court denied my brief motion. So I prepared a more complete one. What a bother!
Doc5 - On April 21, 2008 I filed my longer motion
Doc6 - The clerk chose to file the Memorandum of Law as a separate document.
Doc7 - Along with the Declaration.
Doc8 - I also received the Portland Waiver of Service.
Doc8A - Along with the Exhibit.
Doc9 - Then I received the Oregon Acceptance of Service.
Doc10 (no document) - On April 29, 2008 the court granted in part my longer motion.
Doc11 - On May 15, 2008I filed my third motion, geez.
Doc12 - along with a memorandum of law,
Doc13 - and my declaration.
Doc14 (no document) - On May 29, 2008 the court denied my motion.
Doc15 - Also on May 29, 2008 the city filed a Motion for Extension
Doc16 - along with the supporting declaration.
Doc17 - Also on May 29, 2008 the state filed a Motion for Extension
Doc18 - along with the supporting declaration.
Doc19 - On June 3, 2008 the city filed a Motion to Dismiss
Doc20 - along with the Memorandum of Law and
Doc21-1 - and a Declaration
1. Doc21-2 - Exhibit 1 Order from Western Washington District Court
2. Doc21-3 - Exhibit 2 Temporary Order, unredacted, link is to redacted version
3. Doc21-4 - Exhibit 3 Order for Protection, unredacted, link is to redacted version
4. Doc21-5 - Exhibit 4 Order, Court of Appeals
5. Doc21-6 - Exhibit 5 Order, Oregon Supreme Court
6. Doc21-7 - Exhibit 6 Mandate, Washington Court of Appeals
7. Doc21-8 - Exhibit 7 Complaint
Doc22 - On June 3, 2008 the state filed a Motion to Dismiss
Doc23 - along with the Memorandum of Law.
Doc24 (no document) - On June 10, 2008 the court sealed documents Doc21-3 and Doc21-4.
Doc25 - On June 9, 2008, I filed a motion for an extension of time
Doc26 - and my declaration.
Doc27 (no document) - On June 11, 2008 the court granted extension of time.
Doc28 - On June 25, 2008, I filed a Reply
Doc29-1 - and my declaration with
1. Doc29-2 Exhibit 1 - Arrest Record
2. Doc29-3 Exhibit 2 - Redacted Temporary Order of Protection
3. Doc29-4 Exhibit 3 - Redacted Order of Protection
4. Doc29-5 Exhibit 4 - Constitutional Commissioner Appointment Orders
5. Doc29-6 Exhibit 5 - State's Opposition to Motion to Set Aside
6. Doc29-7 Exhibit 6 - Multnomah County Circuit Court Decision
7. Doc29-8 Exhibit 7 - Transcript of Hearing
8. Doc29-9 Exhibit 8 - Order Approving Transcript
Doc30 - On July 29, 2008, the city filed a Motion for Extension in Deadlines
Doc31 - and the supporting Declaration.
Doc32 (no document) - On August 5, 2008 the court granted motion for extension of discovery & PTO deadlines.
Doc33 - On August 7, 2008, I filed a Motion to Amend the Complaint
Doc33-1 - with a Supplement
Doc34 - and a Memorandum of Law
Doc35 - and a Declaration, but forgot the exhibits. Doh!
Doc36 Note: this is a huge file, 5 meg, with the exhibits and missing the signature page it might be better to get the separate pieces which were on the CD I provided.
1. Exhibit 1, the parking citation of April 23, 2008,
2. Exhibit 2, my response to the parking unit of May 23, 2008,
3. Exhibit 3, the acceptance of service of June 12, 2008, and
4. Exhibit 4, the response of the parking unit of July 23, 2008.
Doc37 - On August 13, 2008 the state filed a Response.
Doc38 - and the city filed a Response.
Separately I will be filing a Motion for Summary Judgment in the parking citation.
Doc39 - and my Response.
On August 19, 2008 city sent me a request for production of documents.
On September 2, 2008 city sent me a reminder to the judge.
On September 17, 2008 I delivered three boxes of documents to the city with my response.
Doc40 - On September 29, 2008, the judge denied the request to amend the complaint.
Doc41 - On October 20, 2008, the judge dismissed the complaint. I was wondering why it was taking so long as it was pretty much a foregone conclusion this would be the result. Now we are off to the 9th Circuit Court.
Doc42 - On October 21, 2008, the judge closed the case.
Doc43 - On October 28, 2008, I filed a Notice of Appeal.
Sent - and the Civil Appeal Docketing Statement.
Doc44 - On November 3, 2008, the Court of Appeals set the Time Schedule.
Doc45 - This is the corrected Document 36 with the signature page (17) included in the scan. It is a huge file as they are all scanned into one large document.
Doc46 - To get the record sent I needed to file a request transcript request for no documents (there weren't hearings to request transcripts for). The transcript request was filed the 12th, but the notice wasn't sent until the 28th.
Doc47 - This is the Certificate of the Record sent to the Ninth Circuit Court.
Doc48 Copy of 9th Circuit's Mandate.
Doc48-1 Copy of 9th Circuit's Memorandum affirming the district court decision.

Ninth Circuit Appeal, Oregon

The Oregon appeal is in the Ninth Circuit Court with case CA08-35902.

On November 11, 2008 I submitted my motion along with the exhibits of:
- Order of April 29. 2008,
- Order of May 29. 2008,
- Page One of the electronic version of the Complaint, and
- Page One of the scanned version of the Complaint.
On November 12, 2008, the city sent me a letter informing me that a different attorney will be handling the appeal. The main motion papers have the wrong case number of 08-23726 rather than 08-35902. Doh!
On November 24, 2008, the state sent me a change of counsel.

The Ninth Circuit Court is transitioning to CM/ECF. Future documents that I file will be filed directly into CM/ECF.

docket I got a copy of the current docket.
doc 1 - 6695061 On November 3, 2008 the clerk filed the Time Schedule Order for the appeal.
doc 4 - 6711877 On November 19, 2008 the clerk denied my motion to expand the record.
doc 5 - 6721423 On November 27, 2008 I appeared in the CM/ECF. I had to file a document, so included another copy of the Notice of Appeal. I got back an email of confirmation.
doc 6 - 6725624 On December 02, 2008 the filed their substitution of attorney with the court.
doc 7 - 6739098 On December 15, 2008 I filed my brief.
doc 8 - 6745751 On December 22, 2008, the clerk rejected my brief as I had not put in the '/s Brian P Carr' for this template (they had been dropped for my previous paper filing as an electronic signature was not supported). I noticed a couple hours after I submitted the electronic version, but it was too late to fix it on my own. Doh!
doc 9 - 6746300 On December 22, 2008 I filed my brief.
doc 10 - 6749682 On December 24, 2008, the clerk accepted my brief. Next is the required ten hard copies.
doc 11 - 6754910 On December 31, 2008, I sent the ten copies along with this certification of the copies.
doc 12 - 6755395 On January 2, 2009, Oregon assigned Matthew J. Lysne to write their brief
doc 13 (no document) - with this extra docket entry.
doc 14 - 6756358-1 Also on January 2, 2009, I got a phone call from Mr. Lysne asking what my position was on their request to get a four week extension based on his current assigned work load. I wasn't happy about it, but it was a reasonable and so I 'took no position' on the motion shown here and submitted on January 5.
doc 15 - 6756358-2 Along with this supporting affidavit.
doc 16 - 6760149 The clerk granted the extension, but there was an odd comment about the District Court sending the record.
doc 17 (no document) - On January 20, 2009 the court accepted my ten hard copies of the brief.
doc 18-1 - 6785979 On January 27, 2009, the City filed their reply brief
doc 18-2 - 6785979 along with a certification of service form.
doc 18-3 - 6785979 and the letter confirming the standard two week extension.
doc 19 - 6794744 On February 3, 2009, the clerk accepted the city's brief. They need to provide ten hard copies.
doc 20 - 6807226 On February 12, 2009, the State filed their reply brief.
doc 21 (no document) - On February 18, 2009 the court accepted the city's ten hard copies of the brief.
doc 22 (no document) - On February 19, 2009 the court accepted the city's excerpt of record.
doc 23 - 6818812 On February 24, 2009, the clerk accepted the state's brief. They need to provide ten hard copies.
doc 24 - 6819646 On February 24, 2009 I filed my reply brief.
doc 25 - 6826104 On February 27, 2009, the clerk accepted my reply brief. I need to provide ten hard copies.
doc 26 (no document) - On March 5, 2009 the court accepted the city's ten hard copies of the brief.
doc 27 (no document) - On March 6, 2009 the court my supplemental excerpts of record.
doc 28-1 - 6836095 On March 6, 2009 I mailed the copies of my reply brief with this certification.
doc 28-2 - 6836095 and filed the certification for the supplemental excerpts of the record.
doc 29 (no document) - On April 3, 2009 the court accepted my ten hard copies of the response brief.
doc 32-1 - 7882544 Memorandum affirming the district court decision.
doc 32-2 - 7882544 Information Regarding Judgment and Post-Judgment Proceedings.
doc 33 - 7900253 Bill of Costs submitted by State of Oregon (for $23.40).
doc 34 - 7900253 Mandate.

1 The court denied this Motion mostly because there was already a General Order in place. However, I had looked for it on the internet at large as well as within their web site. It is placed quite poorly (once I found it) and not formatted for ready access via the search engines. I am attaching a link to the page with the General Order of the Court regarding Public Access to Electronic Case Files (filed 5/29/03) as well as the simpler notice of Redacting Personal Information Notice (for Privacy and Public Access to Electronic Case Files (ECF)) to help drive the search engines to these pages (the real purpose of this footnote). The Middle District of Tennessee has done an excellent job of publicizing their page and the Western District of Missouri has done well with their page. To really help the search engines find the Western Washington page, I would need to alter the source (not necessarily displayed source, but internal flags that search engines use), which I can't reasonably do. However, we all do what we can!

This page was last updated on October 4, 2011.