Dohrman v. State of Washington Department of Social and Health Services

Opinion

1 2

3 U.S. F D IL IS E T D R I I N C T T H C E O URT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 4 Jun 02, 2025 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

7 KARI L. DOHRMAN,

8 Plaintiff, No. 2:24-CV-00359-RLP v.

9 STATE OF WASHINGTON ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT 10 HEALTH SERVICES, WENDY LONG, DONALD CLINTSMAN

11 Defendants. 12

13 Before the Court is Plaintiff Kari Dohrman’s Motion to Alter or Amend Judgement. 14 ECF No. 32. The matter was submitted for consideration without oral argument. The Court 15 has reviewed the record and files herein and is fully informed. For the reasons discussed 16 below, Ms. Dohrman’s Motion to Amend or Alter Judgement, ECF No. 32, is denied. 17 DISCUSSION 18 A successful motion for reconsideration must accomplish two goals. First, it must 19 demonstrate some reason why the court should reconsider its prior decision. Na Mamo O 20 ‘Aha ‘Ino v. Galiher, 60 F.Supp.2d 1058, 1059 (D. Haw. 1999) (citation omitted). Second, 1 a motion for reconsideration must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to 2 induce the court to reverse its prior decision. Id.

3 Under Rule 59(e), it is appropriate to alter or amend a judgment if “(1) the district 4 court is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) the district court committed clear 5 error or made an initial decision that was manifestly unjust, or (3) there is an intervening

6 change in controlling law.” Zimmerman v. City of Oakland, 255 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir. 7 2001). Whether to grant a motion for reconsideration is within the sound discretion of the 8 court. Navajo Nation v. Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakima Nation, 331 F.3d 9 1041, 1046 (9th Cir. 2003).

10 Mere disagreement with a previous order is an insufficient basis for reconsideration. 11 Hawaii Stevedores, Inc. v. HT & T Co., 363 F. Supp. 2d 1253, 1270 (D. Haw. 2005). 12 Furthermore, reconsideration may not be based on evidence and legal arguments that could

13 have been presented at the time of the challenged decision. See Kona Enter., Inc. v. Estate 14 of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). 15 As an initial matter, the Court acknowledges the scrivener’s error in the Order 16 Granting Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint. See ECF No. 30 at 5.

17 The statute of limitations began running on Ms. Dohrman’s claim on October 12, 2021, the 18 date she was notified that DSHS was unable to accommodate her religious exemption. 19 That error, however, does nothing to change the analysis or conclusion of the Court. Ms.

20 Dohrman has not identified an intervening change in the law, submitted any 1|| new evidence, or demonstrated the Court committed clear error that was manifestly 2|| unjust. See Hawaii Stevedores, 363 F. Supp. 2d at 1269. Ms. Dohrman simply disagrees 3|| with the Court’s prior order which is “an insufficient basis for reconsideration.” Jd. Thus, Ms. Dohrman has not provided any grounds upon which the Court can grant her motion 5 ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 6 Ms. Dohrman’s Motion to alter or Amend Judgment, ECF No. 32, is DENIED. 7\| The District Executive is directed to enter this Order and furnish copies to counsel. This file remains closed. 9 DATED June 2, 2025 10

D DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

ORDER GRANTING MOTION