Cheesman v. US Department of Homeland Security

Opinion

1 2 Sep 15, 2020 3 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 9 ROY D. CHEESMAN, No. 1:20-CV-03054-SAB 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. 12 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND ORDER DENYING MOTION 13 SECURITY, TRANSPORTATION FOR RECONSIDERATION; 14 SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, CLOSING FILE 15 Defendant. 16 17 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration, ECF No. 10. 18 Plaintiff is representing himself in this matter. Defendant has not been served. 19 The Court dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 for 20 failure to state a claim. ECF No. 9. The Court dismissed the action because it 21 found that neither the Homeland Security Act, 6 U.S.C. § 111, nor the 22 Transportation Security Administration Act, § 114, provides a private cause of 23 action. Id. The Court also found it appears that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his 24 administrative remedies to the extent he was bringing a claim under the Federal 25 Tort Claims Act. Id. 26 Plaintiff now moves for reconsideration of that Order, arguing that 6 U.S.C. 27 § 111 provides a cause of action. He also provided documentation that he filed a 28 claim with TSA. In addition, Plaintiff indicates that he “would like to challenge the 1 gun law of the Philippines for the individuals American citizen rights for the 2 American concealed weapon permit to be valid and accepted in the Philippines 3 territories and added to the American treaty internationally while traveling from 4 the United States of America into the Philippines territory.” 5 Motions for reconsideration are generally disfavored. Kona Enterprises, Inc. 6 v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). A motion for 7 reconsideration is not appropriate if used to revisit issues already addressed by the 8 Court or to advance new arguments that could have been raised in prior briefing. 9 American Ironworks & Erectors, Inc. v. N. Am. Const. Corp., 248 F.3d 892, 898- 10 99 (9th Cir. 2001). Instead, a motion for reconsideration should be granted, “absent 11 highly unusual circumstances,” only if the court is: (1) presented with new 12 evidence; (2) committed clear error; or (3) if there is an intervening change in the 13 controlling law. Kona Enterprises, 229 F.3d at 890. Whether or not to grant 14 reconsideration is committed to the sound discretion of the court.” Navajo Nation 15 v. Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Indian Nation, 331 F.3d 1041, 16 1046 (9th Cir. 2003). 17 Here, while it appears that Plaintiff may have exhausted his administrative 18 remedies, he has still failed to show that TSA owes him a duty to tag and seal his 19 bag to prevent Philippine officials from inspecting his bag. Moreover, it appears 20 that Plaintiff failed to declare the gun parts. ECF No. 10, p. 12. Plaintiff’s failure to 21 declare the gun parts does not create liability on the part of TSA. Finally, this 22 Court does not have authority to declare a Philippine law invalid. As such, Plaintiff 23 has not shown the Court committed clear error in dismissing his Complaint. 24 // 25 // 26 // 27 // 28 // 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration, ECF No. 10, is DENIED. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter this Order, forward copies to Plaintiff, and close the file. 5 DATED this 15th day of September 2020.

| © Shockey ec toar Stanley A. Bastian 11 Chief United States District Judge 12 13 1 15 1 17 18 19 2 21 2 23 2 25 2 27 28 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION; CLOSING