United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Tacoma
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Richard Creatura United States Magistrate Judge.
U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights matter has been referred to
Magistrate Judge J. Richard Creatura pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§§ 636 (b)(1)(A) and (B) and Local Magistrate Judge
Rules MJR 1, MJR 3, and MJR 4.
Ossie Lee Slaughter asks the Court to reconsider its previous
rulings denying his motions for appointment counsel and for
injunctive relief. However, plaintiff has not provided new
evidence that would alter the Court's prior
determinations and has not otherwise shown that the
Court's decisions were incorrect. Therefore, the Court
declines to reconsider its previous determinations.
Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is denied.
is a Washington state prisoner in the custody of the
Department of Corrections and is currently housed at the
Washington State Penitentiary (“WSP”). Dkt. 154.
At the time plaintiff filed his original complaint, he was
housed at the Stafford Creek Corrections Center
(“SCCC”). Dkt. 109 at 2. Plaintiff alleged that
his constitutional rights were violated when he was cited for
an infraction on June 11, 2015, and when he was subsequently
placed in administrative segregation before being transferred
to the Coyote Ridge Corrections Center (“CRCC”).
He filed his original complaint and an application to proceed
in forma pauperis in July of 2015. Dkt. 1. Pursuant
to Court order, plaintiff filed an amended complaint in
November of 2016. Dkt. 109. Defendants filed an answer (Dkt.
146) and the Court entered a pretrial scheduling order (Dkt.
148) that was subsequently extended (Dkts. 156, 164). Prior
to his present motion, plaintiff requested injunctive relief,
appointment of counsel, and reconsideration of this
Court's determinations several times. See Dkts.
57, 74, 87, 98, 128, 135, 136, 142, 156.
October of 2017, plaintiff filed a letter titled “Re:
Appointment of Counsel and (TRO) Provided Exigently, ”
which the Court interprets as a motion for reconsideration.
Dkt. 166. He requests that the Court reinstate and grant his
previous motion for appointment of counsel and motion for
injunctive relief. Id. at 1. He further asks the Court to
grant him relief “without further delay because as it
stands, [his] present peril[ous] predicament” is
becoming worse. Id. Defendants filed a response to
this motion (Dkt. 167) and plaintiff filed a reply (Dkt.
Court interprets plaintiff's letter as a motion to
reconsider its previous decisions denying plaintiff a
temporary restraining order and denying plaintiff court
appointed counsel. Dkt. 64, 164. Motions for reconsideration
are governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60 and LCR
7(h). LCR 7(h) provides:
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 there
is an intervening change in the controlling law.”
Id. (quoting 389 Orange Street Partners v.
Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999)).
state that the Honorable Benjamin H. Settle has already
forbidden plaintiff from filing additional motions for
reconsideration pertaining to his motion for preliminary
injunction. Dkt. 167 at 2. It is true that Judge Settle
ordered plaintiff to cease filing additional motions for
reconsideration relating to a motion for preliminary
injunction. Dkt. 150 at 3. However, this restriction appears
to be limited only to motions for reconsideration on one
particular motion for preliminary injunction, not for
subsequent motions for preliminary injunction. Id.
Therefore, it appears plaintiff's current motion is not
barred by Court order and the Court will analyze the motion
on the merits.
Reconsideration of Motion for Preliminary Injunction
has not provided a legitimate reason for this Court to
reconsider its previous denial of his motion for injunctive
relief. Both this Court and the District Court have denied
plaintiff injunctive relief on a number of occasions.
See Dkts. 77, 133, 150, 164. As the Court noted in
its most recent denial, plaintiff's motion for injunctive
relief was unrelated to his underlying claims:
Plaintiff asks that a restraining order be entered against
CRCC and WSP, seemingly because of harm he faced in those
facilities. Dkt. 156 at 3. However, plaintiff's amended
complaint focuses on an alleged wrongful infraction plaintiff
received while housed at SCCC and his subsequent placement in
administrative segregation. Dkt. 109 at 14-16. Though his
complaint alleges actions taken against him while at CRCC
(Id. at 16-17), plaintiff's motion only alleges
vindictive action by “defendant's coworker's
[sic]” rather than action by defendants themselves
(Dkt. 160 at 2). Because of this, plaintiff's motion for
an injunction is based on claims not contained in ...