Bell v. King County

Opinion

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE 9 WARREN E. BELL, CASE NO. C22-0387-JCC-TLF 10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. 12 KING COUNTY, et al., 13 Defendants. 14

15 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Dkt. No. 16 75) of this Court’s order adopting the Report and Recommendation of the Honorable Theresa L. 17 Fricke, United States Magistrate Judge, (“Order”) (Dkt. No. 73), recommending this Court 18 GRANT Defendants’ summary judgement motion, (Dkt. No. 39), DENY Plaintiff’s summary 19 judgement motion, (Dkt. No. 19), and DISMISS all Plaintiff’s claims with prejudice. Having 20 thoroughly considered the relevant record, the Court hereby DENIES the reconsideration motion 21 for the reasons explained herein. 22 Motions for reconsideration are generally disfavored. LCR 7(h)(1). Reconsideration is 23 only appropriate where there is “manifest error in the prior ruling or a showing of new facts or 24 legal authority which could not have been brought to [the Court’s] attention earlier with 25 reasonable diligence.” Id. “A motion for reconsideration should not be used to ask the court to 26 1 rethink what the court had already thought through—rightly or wrongly.” Ma v. Univ. of S. 2 California, 2019 WL 1239269, slip op. at 1 (W.D. Wash. 2019). 3 Plaintiff’s motion does not the cite appropriate standard of a motion to reconsider. See 4 LCR 7(h)(1). Instead, it asks the Court to strike an insufficient pleading pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. 5 P. 12(f), (Dkt. No. 75 at 4.), and argues that the pleadings were filed with an improper purpose, 6 pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, (Dkt. No. 75 at 5.) However, even if the Plaintiff did cite to the 7 relevant standard, the motion does not demonstrate manifest error in the prior ruling or a 8 showing of new facts or legal authority, as required by LCR 7(h)(1). Instead, Plaintiff merely 9 reiterates arguments that were already considered and rejected by the Court. (Compare Dkt. No. 10 75 at 2–4, and Dkt. Nos. 70 at 3; 69 at 4–7.) 11 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Dkt. No. 75) is DENIED. 12 DATED this 12th day of June 2023. A 13 14 15 John C. Coughenour 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26