Ejonga-Deogracias v. Sinclair

Opinion

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 7 AT SEATTLE

8 JOJO EJONGA-DEOGRACIAS, Case No. C20-0320-RSM 9 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING 10 DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION v. 11 STEPHEN SINCLAIR, et al., 12

Defendants. 13

14 This matter comes before the Court on Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration, Dkt. 15 #87. On February 27, 2024, this Court dismissed all claims except for Plaintiff’s claims against 16 Defendant Department of Corrections. Dkt. #86. Defendants contend that Plaintiff’s remaining 17 First Amendment claims were not against the Department of Corrections, thus all claims against 18 the Department of Corrections had already been dismissed and were not appealed. Dkt. #87 at 19 2. Plaintiff agrees in his Response that all claims against the Department of Corrections were 20 already dismissed but asks that the Court reconsider for a different reason, i.e., to reinstate 21 Plaintiff’s First Amendment claims. Dkt. #91 at 2-3. 22 Accordingly, the Court recognizes its prior error and hereby ORDERS that Defendants’ 23 Motion for Reconsideration, Dkt. #87, is GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant 24 1 Department of Corrections are DISMISSED. Because Plaintiff appealed this Court’s decision to the Ninth Circuit prior to filing his Response to Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration and this 2 Order, this Court no longer has jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s case. See U.S. v. Phelps, 283 F.3d 3 1176, 1181 n.5 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Griggs v. Provident Consumer Disc. Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 4 (1982). The Clerk is directed to enter judgment GRANTING Defendants’ Motion for Summary 5 Judgment, Dkt. #78, in its entirety and DISMISSING the case with prejudice as to all Defendants. 6 This case is CLOSED. 7

8 DATED this 15th day of March, 2024. 9 10 A 11 RICARDO S. MARTINEZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24