United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle
ROBERT D. THORSON, Petitioner,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
RICARDO S. MARTINEZ, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter comes before the Court on Petitioner's Motion for
Reconsideration of Minute Order Striking Petitioner's
Rule 55(a) Motion for Default Judgment and Notice of
Interlocutory Appeal (“Motion for
Reconsideration”). Dkt. #13. Because the Court has
previously entered a stay in this matter pending
Petitioner's direct appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals (Dkt. #9) and because Petitioner's Motion fails
on the merits, the Court denies Petitioner's Motion.
April 11, 2018, the Court stayed Petitioner's § 2255
Motion pending resolution of his direct appeal to the Ninth
Circuit. Dkt. #9. The Court stayed the matter because
Petitioner did not demonstrate extraordinary circumstances
warranting pursuit of a direct appeal and a § 2255
Motion at the same time and because a stay was warranted for
judicial economy and to avoid duplicitous and inconsistent
decisions. See id.
April 11, 2018, the Court received and docketed
Petitioner's Motion for Default Judgment and Dismissal of
All Counts and Charges against Petitioner (“Motion for
Default”). Dkt. #10. That Motion was dated by
Petitioner on April 9, 2018. Id. Because the Court
had already found a stay appropriate, the Court struck, by
minute order, Petitioner's Motion for Default. Dkt. #11.
Petitioner now seeks reconsideration of the Court's April
13 Minute Order.
Motion for Reconsideration fails because the Court has
already stayed this action. Petitioner did not seek
reconsideration of the stay and cannot now attempt to
sidestep the stay. Petitioner argues that the Court should
apply the “prison mailbox rule” to his Motion for
Reconsideration and treat his Motion as though it had been
filed prior to entry of the stay. Dkt. #13. Whether or not
the prison mailbox rule applies,  this argument misses the
point. The Minute Order was entered because the Court
determined that a stay is warranted and the reasons
justifying a stay apply whether Petitioner's Motion for
Default was filed before or after the stay. Petitioner's
Motion also fails on the merits. “Motions for
reconsideration are disfavored.
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.” LCR 7(h). Petitioner does not allege new
facts or legal authority showing that the Court erred in
striking his Motion pursuant to the stay.
Petitioner argues that the Court should have considered the
merits of his underlying Motion for Default and granted him
the relief requested. Even if the Court is required to
consider the strength of the merits in striking a motion
pursuant to a stay, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a)
does not clearly apply to § 2255 Motions,  Petitioner sought
default judgment,  and the government had appeared in the
action. Petitioner has not demonstrated any
manifest error with regard to the Court's April 13 Minute
Order striking his Motion for Default.
the Court hereby finds and ORDERS that Petitioner's
Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. #13) is DENIED. The Court
will not consider further filings from Petitioner until the
status of Petitioner's direct appeal warrants lifting the
stay in this matter.
Clerk of the Court is directed to mail a copy of this Order
to Robert D. Thorson, No. 48042-086, FCI-Sheridan, Federal