United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ALTER (AMEND)
RICARDO S. MARTINEZ CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion to Alter
(Amend) Judgment. Dkt. #35. This Motion is noted for the
Court's consideration on December 20, 2019, and
Defendants' response is not yet due. However, the
Court finds it beneficial to clarify the status of the
filings pending before the Court so that the parties may
properly address the issues remaining in this case. For that
reason, the Court finds that resolution of the Motion is
appropriate at this time.
Motion requests that the Court revisit its prior order
adopting a Report and Recommendation (R&R) and denying
Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. #33). Dkt.
#35. Plaintiff does not identify a legal basis for his
Motion. The wording appears to track that of Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 59. Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) (identifying
subsection under heading “Motion to Alter or Amend a
Judgment”). But the Court denied Plaintiff's motion
for summary judgment and no judgment has been entered in this
Rule of Civil Procedure 60 provides another possibility.
Relevant here, that Rule allows the Court to grant relief
from an order based on:
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable
diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for
a new trial under Rule 59(b); . . .; or (6) any other reason
that justifies relief.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). But Plaintiff does not reference Rule
60. Nor does it appear that Plaintiff would qualify for
relief under Rule 60 as his Motion is premised on his belief
that his objections to the R&R were timely and that the
Court erred by refusing to consider them. Dkt. #35.
Plaintiff's confusion is perhaps understandable but does
not provide a basis for relief.
States Magistrate Judge Brian A. Tsuchida issued a R&R
advising the Court to deny Plaintiff's motion for summary
judgment on August 14, 2019. Dkt. #20. The R&R made
objections due no later than August 28, 2019. Id. at
12. On Plaintiff's request, the Court extended the time
for Plaintiff to file objections to October 17, 2019. Dkt.
#24. On September 25, 2019, deadline for objections.
Id. In fact, Plaintiff specifically indicated that
“he may have to request another extension of
time, ” clearly indicating that he was aware of the
impending deadline. Dkt. #26 at 1 (emphasis added).
Nevertheless, that deadline came and went without Plaintiff
filing objections until October 25, 2019.
Motion does not demonstrate mistake, excusable neglect, argue
issues of law or fact, or establish any other reason that
justifies relief. Rather, Plaintiff argues flatly that he
should not be required to comply with the Court's rules
and deadlines because he is in jail. Dkt. #35 at 1-2. But
Plaintiff provides no basis for this argument. The Court is
sympathetic to the difficulties Plaintiff faces. Indeed, the
Court has regularly granted Plaintiff extensions. Dkts. #24
and #29. Plaintiff, aware of the impending deadline could
have sought an extension if he needed additional time.
Plaintiff did not, and the Court acted reasonably in
exercising its discretion to not consider Plaintiff's
Plaintiff's Motion would not fare any better if the Court
construed it as a motion for reconsideration. “Motions
for reconsideration are disfavored.” LCR 7(h)(1).
Consequently, 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 [the Court's]
attention earlier with reasonable diligence.”
Id. For the same reasons identified above,
Plaintiff's Motion does not warrant relief as a motion
and having reviewed Plaintiff's motion and the remaining
record, the Court finds and ORDERS that Plaintiff's
Motion to Alter (Amend) Judgment (Dkt. #35) is DENIED.
Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Order to Plaintiff
at his last known address. Dated this 13th day of