PRISONER COMPLAINTS UNDER CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, 42 U.S.C. § 1983

PRISONER COMPLAINTS UNDER CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (a) Form of Complaint Complaints filed pursuant to the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, by or on behalf of prisoners, shall be typewritten or legibly handwritten, and signed by each plaintiff unless presented by an attorney. Such complaints shall be on the forms supplied by the court or, if a plaintiff is represented by an attorney, must contain all of the information requested in the form. (b) Forma Pauperis See LCR 3. (c) Place of Filing See LCR 3(d).

(d) File Original Complaint; No Copies Required Plaintiff shall send to the clerk an original complaint form for filing; additional copies are not required. The complaint shall be accompanied by the appropriate filing fee or an application to proceed in forma pauperis. The Fee Schedule and form templates are available on the court’s website (www.wawd.uscourts.gov). 139 Civil Rules UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE Petitioner, v. Superintendent of Washington State Penitentiary, Respondent. , , Case No. APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS; APPLICA- TION FOR APPOINT- MENT OF COUNSEL; REQUEST FOR STAY OF EXECUTION My name is .

I am a prisoner in state custody under sentence of death. I was convicted and sentenced in the County Superior Court. My death sentence was affirmed by the Washington Supreme Court on , 20 . My scheduled execution date is , 20 .

I was tried and I am being held in violation of my federal constitutional rights, including the following: (1) ; (2) ; (3) ; (Include at least one federal ground for relief) The attorney representing me in my most recent state court proceedings in connection with my conviction and death sentence has informed me that he/she is unable to represent me in federal habeas corpus proceedings. I am indigent and have substantially no assets. I hereby request that the court appoint an attorney to represent me in my petition for writ of habeas corpus in this court. 140 Civil Rules I also request that the court stay my execution at this time until counsel has been appointed and permit me leave to amend this petition after counsel has had opportunity to assist me.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. DATED: Signature of Prisoner 141 APPENDIX A. DEFENDANT'S SECOND MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER CIVIL RULES See LCR 10(e)(1) The Honorable Robert S. Lasnik UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE ABC CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. XYZ COMPANY, INC., Defendant. [Insert Text] No. C12-1234RSL DEFENDANT'S SECOND MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER NOTE ON MOTION CALENDAR: [insert date] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 DEFENDANT'S SECOND MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER (C12-1234RSL) Law Firm of Lawyers 10,000 Fifth Avenue Seattle, Washington 98104 (206) 555-5555 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 APPENDIX B. SUBMISSION REGARDING REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION CIVIL RULES See LCR 37 The Honorable Robert S. Lasnik UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE JONES ACTOR, Plaintiff, v. BIG ROSE FLOWER COMPANY, Defendant. No. C01-9999RSL LCR 37 SUBMISSION REGARDING REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17 NOTE ON MOTION CALENDAR: [insert date] I. MOVING PARTY'S INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT Defendant Big Rose Flower Company is the moving party for this submission. Plaintiff Jones Actor is seeking more than $2.5 million in damages, claiming that at the time he purchased Big Rose stock, Big Rose allegedly failed to disclose that the property owned by Big Rose for growing flowers would be unable to produce a suitable crop in 2014.

It is claimed that these alleged misstatements violated Section 10(b) of the 1934 Securities Exchange Act and the Washington Securities Act. DEFENDANT'S SECOND MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER (C12-1234RSL) Law Firm of Lawyers 10,000 Fifth Avenue Seattle, Washington 98104 (206) 555-5555 These allegations are untrue. Further, Actor is a director of a company that is also in the flower business, Fleurs 'R' Nous Company, and he was undoubtedly aware of the problems caused by the 2013 drought, which affected all flower producing companies in the Northwest. II.

RESPONDING PARTY'S STATEMENT Jones Actor purchased nearly $3 million of stock in Big Rose--stock that is worth less than $500,000 today. He purchased this substantial amount of stock because of glowing reports from Big Rose regarding its prospects for future profits. However, things were not as rosy as they seemed. All of Big Rose's land holdings used to produce flowers were not only severely parched by the 2013 drought, but also contaminated with chemicals because of a mistake in choosing fertilizers.

Big Rose knew that it was unlikely that these chemicals could be removed from the soil in time to produce a profitable crop for 2014. When this information was finally disclosed to the public, Big Rose stock plummeted in value.

III.

DISPUTED DISCOVERY REQUESTS REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 17: Please produce all income tax returns for 2000 through 2014 for the Fleurs 'R' Nous Company. RESPONSE: Actor objects to this request on the grounds that it calls for information this is both not relevant to any parties claim or defense and not proportional to the needs of the case. This litigation involves claims that Big Rose Flower Company misled investors about its financial profits by omitting information about its property and crops. This request seeks information about the income taxes of a business that is not even a party to the dispute.

Discovery of Fleurs ‘R’ Nous Company’s tax returns is not important to resolving the issues in dispute. Further, the information sought is confidential and no compelling reason justifies its disclosure. In addition the request is also overbroad and unduly burdensome because it sees information spanning 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 DEFENDANT'S SECOND MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER (C12-1234RSL) Law Firm of Lawyers 10,000 Fifth Avenue Seattle, Washington 98104 (206) 555-5555 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 years. The claims at issue pertain to at most only a two-year period.

For these reasons, all requested tax returns from non-party Fleurs ‘R’ Nous company are being withheld. Moving Party's Argument Actor claims that he was deceived by the alleged omissions of information from Big Rose's public statements. To defend against this claim, Big Rose will show that Actor is a sophisticated individual, who was aware of the risks in the flower business and who also had information obtained by Fleurs 'R' Nous regarding the problems that Big Rose was having with its land at the time he was buying Big Rose stock. Defendants in security cases are properly allowed to obtain tax returns, because they help show the plaintiff's degree of sophistication and understanding of the risks of investment.

Davis v. Big Co., 123 F.3d 777, 788 (9th Cir. 1999). Further, the tax return may identify individuals with knowledge of Actor's understanding of the industry. Responding Party's Response While it is true that tax returns may be produced to show the degree of sophistication of a securities plaintiff, the tax returns sought here are not Actor's personal tax returns, but rather the tax returns for a company in which he is a director and part owner.

That company is not a party to these proceedings. Non-parties should not be forced to produce their tax returns absent very compelling reasons. Westminster v. Abbey, 867 F.3d 309, 312 (9th Cir. 1999).

No compelling reasons have been presented. Fleurs 'R' Nous is not a publicly traded company, and its financial and other information is maintained as confidential. It is a competitor of Big Rose, and disclosure of this information through discovery could be harmful. Additionally, the request is DEFENDANT'S SECOND MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER (C12-1234RSL) Law Firm of Lawyers 10,000 Fifth Avenue Seattle, Washington 98104 (206) 555-5555 overbroad and unduly burdensome.

Fiften years of tax returns are unnecessary and not proportional to the needs of the case when the claims at issue pertain only to a two-year period. Moving Party's Reply Actor's supposed concern about Fleurs 'R' Nous' confidential information can be addressed through a protective order. Big Rose will agree not to disclose this information to persons other than counsel and experts absent agreement of the parties or further order of the court. While Fleurs 'R' Nous is not a party, its tax returns may contain information about money spent addressing the drought problem that was common to several floral companies.

Thus, the information is both relevant and proportional to the needs of the case. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 DEFENDANT'S SECOND MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER (C12-1234RSL) Law Firm of Lawyers 10,000 Fifth Avenue Seattle, Washington 98104 (206) 555-5555 CERTIFICATION I certify that the full response by the responding party has been included in this submission, and that prior to making this submission the parties conferred to attempt to resolve this discovery dispute in accordance with LCR 37(a). DATED: Ira Just (WSBA #1234) Attorneys for Big Rose Company Moving Party 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 LCR 37 SUBMISSION (C01-9999RSL) Law Firm of Lawyers 10,000 Fifth Avenue Seattle, Washington 98104 (206) 555-5555 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 CIVIL RULES APPENDIX C. VIRTUAL DEPOSITIONS See LCR 30(b)(4) The Honorable Robert S. Lasnik UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE ABC CORPORATION, v. XYZ COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff, Defendant. No.: C01-9999RSL STIPULATION REGARDING CONDUCTING VIRTUAL DEPOSITIONS Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 29(a), the parties agree to the following protocols regarding virtual depositions in this matter: Virtual Depositions.

The depositions of witnesses in this case shall be conducted by a remote videoconference platform until otherwise agreed. Notice and Login. [Option 1:]The parties intend to use ____________ as the court reporter and ______ as the virtual platform, but may use another court reporter or platform if the need arises. Login information will be provided to all parties no later than 24 hours prior to the start of the STIPULATION REGARDING CONDUCTING VIRTUAL DEPOSITIONS - 148 No.: C01-9999RSL Law Firm of Lawyers 10,000 Fifth Avenue Seattle, Washington 98104 (206) 555-5555 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 deposition. [Option 2:] The deposing party will disclose the name of the court reporting agency and virtual platform to be used at least one week in advance of the deposition. Login information will be provided to all parties no later than 24 hours prior to the start of the deposition.

Physical Presence with Deponent. The deponents will be made available for deposition by video. The only person permitted in the same room as the deponent is the deponent’s lawyer, in which case the deponent and the deponent’s lawyer will each have their own computer with camera, and individual or shared audio feeds via microphone or telephone. No deponent will be required to be present in the same room as another person if the deponent wishes to be deposed alone.

Conduct of Deponent. While on the record the deponent will not use any communication device other than those to facilitate the deposition. While on the record, the deponent will not privately confer with anyone between a question and an answer except for the purpose of determining the existence and questions of privilege. This stipulation does not govern the conduct of anyone while not on the record.

Contact with the Deponent During a Virtual Deposition. While on the record, no one will communicate with the deponent outside of the video/audio stream. This includes, but is not limited to, instant messaging, text messaging, or any equivalent. In the event any such communications occur, the parties agree that the communications are discoverable.

Technology Requirements. All virtual depositions will be stenographically recorded by a court reporter with real-time feed capabilities. The deponent, the deponent’s lawyer, and the questioning attorney must have a webcam-equipped device (such as a desktop, laptop, or tablet), and a device with audio-capabilities or access to a telephone for calling into the deposition, and STIPULATION REGARDING CONDUCTING VIRTUAL DEPOSITIONS - 149 No.: C01-9999RSL Law Firm of Lawyers 10,000 Fifth Avenue Seattle, Washington 98104 (206) 555-5555 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 will allow themselves to be seen and heard at all times during the deposition. Unless directed otherwise by the court reporter, all other attendees will turn video off such that their names appear instead of their images (but they may view the video feed of the deposition).

Counsel for the deponent shall be responsible for ensuring that the deponent has access to the required equipment on the day of the deposition and that any equipment checks or tests (as instructed by the deposition services vendor) have been completed prior to the deposition. Noticing counsel are not responsible for the quality or functionality of the video and audio stream for the deponent or other participants. Identification of Individuals in Attendance. Every person attending the deposition shall be identified on the record at the commencement of the deposition or upon later entry permitted by the court reporter.

Persons attending by telephone must identify themselves by name and by telephone number. Under no circumstances may persons attend the deposition virtually in any manner without identifying themselves on the record at the commencement of the deposition or when admitted later by the court reporter. Conduct by Participants Appearing Virtually. In addition to the provisions set forth above, each participant should attend from a quiet location.

All attendees other than the deponent, court reporter, deposing attorney, and objecting attorney will set their audio connection to mute to avoid unintentional noise. Exhibits. [The parties should include in this agreement a method for sharing and reviewing exhibits. The following are suggested examples that may be modified as appropriate.] [Example 1: The parties may mark and share exhibits using a court reporting agency’s technology which facilitates the sharing and review of exhibits through chat and/or exhibit share features. The exhibits should be shared in such a way that allows the deponent to increase the STIPULATION REGARDING CONDUCTING VIRTUAL DEPOSITIONS - 150 No.: C01-9999RSL Law Firm of Lawyers 10,000 Fifth Avenue Seattle, Washington 98104 (206) 555-5555 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 size of the exhibit and scroll through a multi-page exhibit so that the deponent may review the entire document.] [Example 2: The parties may transmit each exhibit, either in advance of the deposition or as each exhibit is introduced, to court reporter, the deponent, and the deponent’s lawyer via email or file-sharing link.

If the exhibits are transmitted in advance of the deposition, the deponent and the deponent’s lawyer agree not to open or review the exhibits until the parties are on the record at the deposition. The parties may also elect to transmit a hard copy of the exhibits to the deponent and the deponent’s counsel in advance of the deposition, which will not be opened until the parties are on the record at the deposition.] Disruptions. In the event the deponent, the deponent’s lawyer, or the questioning attorney’s video feed is interrupted or otherwise becomes hidden from view, the deposition will be suspended, and the parties will go back on the record only when that person’s video stream functionality has been restored. Disruptions due to video streaming, phone line interruption, or other technical problems shall not be counted against record time.

Court Reporter and Videographer. The parties stipulate, in accordance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that the court reporter or videographer (if noticed) may participate in the virtual deposition, and that the deposition will be deemed to have been conducted “before” that officer, even though the officer is not physically present with the deponent, so long as that officer is able to identify the deponent. The court reporter will at all times have access to the same interface as the witness. Other Recording.

No participant other than the court-reporting agency and videographer (after appropriate notice) may record by video, photograph, or audio any of the proceedings. This shall include recording using any form of virtual transmitting device, STIPULATION REGARDING CONDUCTING VIRTUAL DEPOSITIONS - 151 No.: C01-9999RSL Law Firm of Lawyers 10,000 Fifth Avenue Seattle, Washington 98104 (206) 555-5555 computer recording device, laptops, camera, and personal device, including smart phones, tablets, iPads, Androids, iPhones, Blackberries, or other PDAs. Nothing in this provision prevents or limits the taking of notes by those identified on the record. This stipulation will be in effect until one of the parties provides notice of the need to make changes to it and agreement is reached, or the court orders that other procedures shall apply.

The parties agree to make this stipulation Exhibit 1 to the depositions in this case. DATED this ______ day of ______________, 20___. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 STIPULATION REGARDING CONDUCTING VIRTUAL DEPOSITIONS - 152 No.: C01-9999RSL Law Firm of Lawyers 10,000 Fifth Avenue Seattle, Washington 98104 (206) 555-5555