Cruzado v. State of Washington

Opinion

1 2 3

4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 ANGEL LUIS CRUZADO, CASE NO. 2:22-cv-1474 8 9 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 10 v. 11 STATE OF WASHINGTON and CITY OF SEATTLE, 12 Defendants. 13

14 Plaintiff Angel Luis Cruzado moves for reconsideration of this Court’s order 15 dismissing the State of Washington from his case. Dkt. Nos. 42, 43. He asks the 16 Court to “require the [S]tate [to] address the four constitutional challenges outlined 17 in this case.” Dkt. No. 43 at 1. 18 “Motions for reconsideration are disfavored.” LCR 7(h)(1). Such motions must 19 be denied absent a showing of “manifest error in the prior ruling . . . new facts or 20 legal authority which could not have been brought to [the Court’s] attention earlier 21 with reasonable diligence.” Id. Motions for reconsideration should be granted only 22 in “highly unusual circumstances.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma 23 GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). 24 1 Reconsideration is an “extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests 2 of finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Est. of 3 Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). A motion for reconsideration “may not be

4 used to raise arguments or present evidence for the first time when they could 5 reasonably have been raised earlier in the litigation.” Id. “Whether or not to grant 6 reconsideration is committed to the sound discretion of the court.” Navajo Nation v. 7 Confederated Tribes & Bands of the Yakima Indian Nation, 331 F.3d 1041, 1046 8 (9th Cir. 2003). 9 In his motion for reconsideration, Cruzado makes several arguments about 10 the merits of his case and why a trial on his claims is warranted. But the Court 11 dismissed Cruzado’s complaint because he lacked standing to pursue the relief 12 sought, and his motion for reconsideration fails to address this defect in anyway. 13 For example, Cruzado failed to show that there was a “sufficient likelihood that he 14 will again be wronged in a similar way.” Canatella v. Cal., 304 F.3d 843, 852 (9th 15 Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks omitted). 16 Because Cruzado lacks standing, the Court lacks discretion to hear his case. 17 “Article III of the United States Constitution ‘requires a litigant to have “standing” 18 to invoke the power of a federal court.”’ Williams v. Boeing Co., 517 F.3d 1120, 1126- 19 27 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 750 (1984)). “[W]hen a 20 federal court concludes that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must 21 dismiss the complaint in its entirety.” Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 22 23 (2006). 24 1 The Court also rejects Cruzado’s attempt to join additional plaintiffs to avoid 2 dismissal of his case. Cruzado is a non-attorney proceeding pro se. He cannot 3 represent others. See Simon v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co., 546 F.3d 661, 664

4 (9th Cir. 2008) (“[T]he privilege to represent oneself pro se provided by § 1654 is 5 personal to the litigant and does not extend to other parties or entities.”). If any of 6 the other plaintiffs intend to seek relief, they must bring their own complaints. 7 Cruzado fails to show why the Court should reverse or modify its previous 8 ruling. Accordingly, his motion for reconsideration is DENIED. 9 Dated this 28th day of November, 2023. 10 A 11 Jamal N. Whitehead 12 United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24