Contine v. State of Washington Department of Corrections

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: April 25, 2025
• Docket: 2:24-cv-01687
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2

3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE

9 10 BRENDA J. CONTINE, CASE NO. C24-1687JLR 11 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 12 STATE OF WASHINGTON 13 DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, 14 15 Defendant.

16 Before the court is pro se Plaintiff Brenda J. Contine’s motion for reconsideration 17 of the court’s March 19, 2025 order granting Defendant the State of Washington 18 Department of Corrections’s (“DOC”) motion to dismiss. (MFR (Dkt. # 27); see 3/19/25 19 Order (Dkt. # 25); Judgment (Dkt. # 26).) The court DENIES the motion.1 20

1 DOC filed a response to Ms. Contine’s motion for reconsideration. (MFR Resp. (Dkt. 21 # 28).) However, “[n]o response to a motion for reconsideration shall be filed unless requested by the court.” Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 7(h)(3). Therefore, the court STRIKES and does 22 not consider DOC’s response. 1 A motion for reconsideration is an “extraordinary remedy . . . to be used 2 sparingly[.]” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000)

3 (citation omitted). “Motions for reconsideration are disfavored” and “[t]he court will 4 ordinarily deny such motions in the absence of a showing of manifest error in the prior 5 ruling or a showing of new facts or legal authority which could not have been brought to 6 its attention earlier with reasonable diligence.” Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 7(h)(1). 7 In this District, motions for reconsideration “shall be filed within fourteen days after the 8 order to which it relates is filed.” Id. LCR 7(h)(2).

9 Although the court issued its order and judgment on March 19, 2025, Ms. Contine 10 did not file her motion for reconsideration until April 14, 2025—twelve days after the 11 April 2, 2025 deadline. Id.; (see Dkt.). The court denies the motion on this basis alone. 12 See, e.g., Muñoz v. United States, 28 F.4th 973, 978 (9th Cir. 2022) (“[I]t is axiomatic 13 that pro se litigants, whatever their ability level, are subject to the same procedural

14 requirements as other litigants.” (internal citations omitted)). Even if the motion were 15 timely, the court would nevertheless deny it because Ms. Contine has shown neither 16 manifest error in the court’s prior ruling nor new facts or legal authority which she could 17 not have brought to the court’s attention with reasonable diligence. (See generally MFR.) 18 Accordingly, the court DENIES Ms. Contine’s motion for reconsideration (Dkt. # 27).

19 Dated this 25th day of April, 2025. A 20 21 JAMES L. ROBART United States District Judge 22