United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle
C. COUGHENOUR, Judge
following Minute Order is made by direction of the Court, the
Honorable John C. Coughenour, United States District Judge:
matter comes before the Court on Defendant's motion for
reconsideration (Dkt. No. 17) of this Court's order
denying Defendant's motion to appoint counsel (Dkt. No.
2), motion for leave to amend complaint (Dkt. No. 8), second
motion for leave to amend complaint (Dkt. No. 11), motion to
show cause and correcting complaint (Dkt. No. 12), and the
Court's order dismissing Plaintiff's complaint (Dkt.
No. 14). Having thoroughly considered Plaintiff's motion
and the relevant record, the Court hereby DENIES the motion
for the reasons explained herein.
for reconsideration are generally disfavored. W.D. Wash.
Local Civ. R. 7(h)(1). But reconsideration is appropriate
where the moving party seeks reconsideration within 14 days
after the order to which it relates is filed, and there is 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 [the Court's] attention earlier with
reasonable diligence.” W.D. Wash. Local Civ. R.
motion neither demonstrates that the Court committed manifest
error, nor provides new facts or legal authority that would
cause the Court to change its ruling. The Court dismissed
Plaintiff's complaint without prejudice because the
complaint did not provide a basis for subject matter
jurisdiction. (Dkt. No. 14 at 3.) Under 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2), when a Plaintiff pursues a civil action in
forma pauperis the district court “shall dismiss
the case at any time if the court determines . . . the action
or appeal . . . (i) is frivolous or malicious; [or] (ii)
fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted . . .
.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(ii). A complaint
is considered frivolous under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) if it
fails to establish subject matter jurisdiction. See Pratt
v. Sumner, 807 F.2d 817, 819 (9th Cir. 1987).
Court determined that Plaintiff did not plead adequate facts
to demonstrate that the Court had either federal question or
diversity jurisdiction. (Dkt. No. 2-3.) Plaintiff has not
provided new facts that would allow the Court to find
jurisdiction. Plaintiff brings a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim
against private defendants, asserting that they violated his
rights under the First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments of
the Constitution. (Dkt. No. 17 at 3-11.) Plaintiff has not
plead facts that demonstrate the private defendants took
joint action with a state actor. See Kirtley v.
Rainey, 326 F.3d 1088, 1092 (9th Cir. 2003)
(“While generally not applicable to private parties, a
§ 1983 action can lie against a private party when he is
a willful participant in joint action with the State or its
agents.”) (internal quotation marks and citation
provides only conclusory allegations that defendants acted
under color of state law. See Price v. State of
Hawaii, 939 F.2d 702, 707-08 (9th Cir. 1991) (noting
that conclusory allegations unsupported by facts are
insufficient to state a 1983 action). Nor has Plaintiff provided
facts that demonstrate the Court has diversity jurisdiction.
Based on the allegations in the complaint and motion to
reconsider all of the parties to the lawsuit appear to be
citizens of Washington. (Dkt. Nos. 6, 17.)
foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration
(Dkt. No. 17) is DENIED. The Clerk is DIRECTED to mail a copy
of this order to Plaintiff at: Norman Gotcher Jr., DOC
#634076, Washington Corrections Center, PO Box 900, Shelton,
 Plaintiff's motion is also
untimely. The Court filed its order dismissing
Plaintiff's complaint on November 2, 2017. (Dkt. No. 14.)
Plaintiff filed his motion on November 22, 2017, which is
almost a week after the 14-day deadline. (Dkt. No. 17.) The
Court realizes that Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and
currently incarcerated, both of which make it difficult for
him to comply with procedural rules. Were there not
substantive deficiencies with Plaintiff's complaint, the
Court would hesitate to deny the motion solely on procedural
 For the same reasons the Court would
not have federal question jurisdiction it would not have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(3).
 For the same reasons the Court would
not have subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff's
claim, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for which relief
can be granted. That provides a separate basis for dismissal
of his ...