United States District Court, W.D. Washington
ORDER VACATING IN PART PREVIOUS ORDER, ADOPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, AND DENYING
BENJAMIN H. SETTLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter comes before the Court on the Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”) of the Honorable J.
Richard Creatura, United States Magistrate Judge (Dkt. 133),
and Plaintiff Ossie Lee Slaughter's
(“Slaughter”) objections to the R&R (Dkt.
135). Also before the Court is Slaughter's motion for
reconsideration on the issue of a preliminary injunction
August 7, 2015, Slaughter filed a prisoner civil rights
complaint, alleging claims under the First, Fifth, Eighth,
and Fourteenth Amendments. Dkt. 12 at 5-9. Although Slaughter
did not file a motion for a preliminary injunction, he
requested a preliminary injunction in his complaint to
prevent him from being transferred to another prison.
Id. at 8.
October 8, 2015, Defendants moved to dismiss Slaughter's
complaint for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Dkt. 44. On December 9, 2015, Judge
Creatura recommended denying Defendants' motion as to
Slaughter's First Amendment claim. Dkt. 61 at 14-17.
Judge Creatura also recommended granting Defendants'
motion with regard to Slaughter's remaining claims, but
with leave to amend his Eighth Amendment claim and the
personal participation of certain individual defendants.
Id. at 7-14. Finally, Judge Creatura recommended
denying Slaughter's request for preliminary injunctive
relief as moot. Id. at 19-20.
January 4, 2016, Slaughter filed objections to the R&R.
Dkt. 66. On January 21, 2016, Defendants responded. Dkt. 69.
On February 23, 2016, the Court adopted Judge Creatura's
recommendations, dismissing numerous claims and granting
Slaughter leave to amend his complaint as to his Eighth
Amendment claim by March 18, 2016. Dkt. 73.
November 7, 2016, Slaughter filed his amended complaint. Dkt.
109. Despite numerous extensions, Slaughter filed the amended
complaint months after his latest extended deadline of August
19, 2016. See Dkts. 91, 84, 103. On November 18,
2016, Defendants moved to dismiss Slaughter's complaint
under Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b) for failure to timely file his
amended complaint. Dkt. 110. In the alternative, Defendants
requested an extension to answer the amended complaint.
Id. On December 13, Slaughter responded to the
motion to dismiss. Dkt. 117. On December 15, 2016, Defendants
replied. Dkt. 119.
January 11, 2017, Judge Creatura issued the R&R denying
Defendants' motion to dismiss under Rule 41(b). Dkt. 124.
Judge Creatura also recommended granting Defendants'
request for an extension to answer Slaughter's amended
complaint. Id. On August 22, 2016, Slaughter
objected to the R&R. Dkt. 125. On February 1, 2017,
Defendants responded to Slaughter's objections. Dkt. 132.
After considering the objections, the Court nonetheless
adopted the R&R. Dkt. 134.
February 21, 2017, when the Court adopted the R&R on
Defendant's motion to dismiss (Dkt. 124), the Court also
adopted the R&R on Slaughter's motion for a
preliminary injunction (Dkt. 133). In doing so, the Court
erroneously adopted the R&R before it was ripe for
consideration. The R&R was not noted for consideration
until March 3, 2017, as Slaughter retained the right to
object to the R&R until that date pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). Dkt. 133. On March
1, 2017, Slaughter objected to the R&R. Dkt. 135.
Accordingly, the Court vacates its previous order (Dkt. 134)
to the extent that it addresses Slaughter's motion for
preliminary injunction and now considers Slaughter's
objections (Dkt. 135).
Slaughter has moved for reconsideration on the denial of his
motion for preliminary injunction. Dkt. 136. The Court also
considers this motion for reconsideration.
considering a nondispositive order from a magistrate judge,
the district judge must consider timely objections and modify
or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous
or is contrary to law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a).
the Court was mistaken in adopting the R&R prior to
giving Slaughter the opportunity to object, the Court now
adopts Judge Creatura's R&R regarding Slaughter's
motion for a preliminary injunction for the same reasons
stated in its previous order. See Dkt. 134. While
Slaughter's lawsuit brings claims against employees at
Stafford Creek Corrections Center (“SCCC”),
see Dkt. 103, his motion for preliminary injunction
seeks relief from nonparty employees at Coyote Ridge
Corrections Center(“CRCC”). Dkt. 128. While
Plaintiff claims that the conduct of the nonparties at CRCC
is somehow related to the conduct of Defendants at SCCC, he
has failed to set forth any facts supporting such an
allegation. See Dkt. 128. Slaughter's objections
fail to address the underlying basis for the R&R's
conclusion; namely, that the injunctive relief Slaughter
seeks against employee defendants at the CRCC is not based
upon the claims pled in his complaint. See Dkt. 133
at 4. Therefore, the Court agrees with the R&R that the
requested injunction must be denied. See De Beers Consol.
Mines v. United States, 325 U.S. 212, 220 (1945)
(denying the requested prospective relief when “[i]t is
not an injunction in the cause, and it deals with a matter
lying wholly outside the issues in the suit.”).
for reconsideration are governed by Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 60 and Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 7(h). LCR 7(h)
Motions for reconsideration are disfavored. The court will
ordinarily deny such motions in the absence of a showing of
manifest error in the prior ruling or a showing of new facts
or legal authority which could not have been brought to its
attention earlier with reasonable diligence.
Ninth Circuit has described reconsideration as an
“extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the
interests of finality and conservation of judicial
resources.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of
Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting 12
James Wm. Moore et al., Moore's Federal Practice
§ 59.30 (3d ed. 2000)). “[A] motion for
reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual
circumstances, unless the district court is presented with
newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if ...