Adams v. Jackson

Opinion

1 U.S. FDILISETDR IINC TT HCEO URT 2 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON Dec 05, 2024 3 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 9 10 RYAN SCOTT ADAMS, No. 4:24-CV-05041-SAB 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 13 RECONSIDERATION 14 ROBERT JACKSON, C/O PIERSON, 15 RS HIEDI GRIFFITH, RS 16 MICHELLE GULLON, JASON 17 MARTIN, ALFREDO LOMELI, 18 JASON RICHER, ROBERTO 19 MENDIOLA, CC3 CHRISTOPHER 20 ALANIZ, SGT REHBURG, C/O 21 TYLER JADIN, SGT 22 BIDDESOMBE, C/O LINDA 23 GOMEZ-SALAZAR, DHO REINO, 24 DHO MORENO, SGT JOHN DOE 25 #4, CHARLES ANDERSON, and 26 MICHAEL HATHAWAY, 27 Defendants. 28 1 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration. ECF No. 21. 2 Plaintiff, an individual currently incarcerated at the Washington State Penitentiary, 3 is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. The Court did not direct that 4 Defendants be served in this action. 5 By Order filed October 3, 2024, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s Third 6 Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, 7 but without prejudice to Plaintiff filing a new and separate action against newly 8 added Defendants involving allegations that occurred after he filed his initial 9 complaint on April 19, 2024. See ECF No. 19. The Court denied Plaintiff’s request 10 for a temporary restraining order. Id. Judgment was entered the same day. ECF 11 No. 20. 12 On October 25, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Reconsideration, 13 asking the Court to reconsider the dismissal of his action. ECF No. 21. For the 14 reasons set forth below, the motion is denied. 15 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 16 A motion for reconsideration may be reviewed under either Federal Rule of 17 Civil Procedure Rule 59(e) (motion to alter or amend a judgment) or Rule 60(b) 18 (relief from judgment). Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 19 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). “A district court may properly reconsider its 20 decision if it ‘(1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear 21 error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening 22 change in controlling law.’” Smith v. Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist., 727 F.3d 950, 955 (9th 23 Cir. 2013) (quoting School Dist. No. 1J , Multnomah Cnty., Or., 5 F.3d at 1263). 24 “There may also be other, highly unusual, circumstances warranting 25 reconsideration.” School Dist. No. 1J Multnomah Cnty., Or., 5 F.3d at 1263. 26 A motion for reconsideration is not appropriate if used to revisit issues 27 already addressed by the Court or to advance new arguments that could have been 28 raised in prior briefing. American Ironworks & Erectors, Inc. v. N. Am. Const. 1|| Corp., 248 F.3d 892, 898-99 (9th Cir. 2001). Having liberally construed Plaintiffs submissions, the Court finds that he has presented no new facts, information, or 3|| newly discovered evidence for the Court to consider in evaluating his request. School Dist. No. 1J Multnomah Cnty., Or., 5 F.3d at 1263. Plaintiff has not shown 5|| the Court committed clear error or that the dismissal of this action was manifestly unjust. There has been no intervening change in controlling law or any other circumstances warranting reconsideration. /d. The failure to follow prison policy does not establish a constitutional violation. See Cousins v. Lockyer, 568 F.3d 1063, 1070 (9th Cir. 2009). 10 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 11 1. Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration, ECF No. 21, is DENIED. 12 2. The Court certifies that any appeal of this decision would not be taken good faith. 14 3. The file shall remain CLOSED. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter this Order and provide a copy to Plaintiff. 17 DATED this 5th day of December 2024. 18 19 20 21 □ Souler Fectar— 23 Stanley A. Bastian 24 Chief United States District Judge 25 26 27 28