E.L.A. v. United States

Opinion

1 HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES

9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 11

12 E.L.A. and O.L.C., No. 2:20-cv-1524-RAJ

13 Plaintiffs, v. 14

15 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ORDER 16 Defendant.

18 19 I. INTRODUCTION 20 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration, Dkt. 21 # 37, of the Court’s order granting Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ abuse of 22 process claim without prejudice. Dkt. # 36. For the reasons below, the motion is 23 DENIED. 6 24 II. DISCUSSION 25 Motions for reconsideration are disfavored under the Local Rules for the Western 26 District of Washington. Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 7(h)(1). Thus, “in the absence of a 27 showing of manifest error in the prior ruling or a showing of new facts or legal authority 1 which could not have been brought to [the Court’s] attention earlier with reasonable 2 diligence,” such motions will ordinarily be denied. Id. Plaintiffs do not present any new 3 facts or legal authority or establish a manifest error in the Court’s order. They simply 4 reassert arguments that the Court has already considered. 5 Plaintiffs allege that the Court failed to consider three paragraphs of the complaint 6 that establish the first element of their abuse of process claim. Dkt. # 37 at 3. Paragraphs 7 37-39 of the complaint allege that Plaintiff E.L.A.’s (“ELA”) federal court proceeding for 8 illegal entry resulted in O.L.A. (“OLA”) being designated an “unaccompanied minor” 9 under 8 U.S.C. § 1232(b)(1) and 6 U.S.C. § 279(b). Dkt. # 1 ¶ 37-39. Plaintiffs claim that 10 these three paragraphs were overlooked by the Court, resulting in manifest error. Dkt. # 11 37 at 1. 12 The Court did indeed consider the paragraphs cited by Plaintiffs concerning the 13 first prong of an abuse of process claim, as the Court reviewed both the complaint and 14 Plaintiffs’ response to the Government’s motion to dismiss. See Dkt. # 36 at p. 2 (citing 15 to paragraphs 37, 38, and 39 of the complaint); p. 12 (considering Plaintiff’s discussion 16 of the factual basis for all three elements of an abuse of process claim, which included 17 citations to the aforementioned paragraphs of the complaint). The Court concluded that 18 although Plaintiffs sufficiently alleged that the Government had an ulterior motive in 19 exercising the process and that damage resulted to the Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs did not allege 20 that the Government made an “illegal, improper or perverted use of the process.” Dkt. # 21 36 at 12. In its order, the Court specifically addressed the allegations raised in paragraphs 22 37-39 of the complaint, namely, that the Government “improperly used the judicial 23 process that followed [ELA’s prosecution for illegal entry] as a rationale to designate 24 OLC an unaccompanied minor when, in fact, he was accompanied by his father.” Id. 25 (quotations omitted). 26 The Court held that Plaintiff’s allegation went to the reason for charging ELA, but 27 not the process itself, Id., and the Court sees no reason to reconsider its prior ruling. In its 1 Order the Court noted that under Texas law, “[w]hen the process is used for the purpose 2 for which it is intended, even though accompanied by an ulterior motive, no abuse of 3 process occurs.” Baubles & Beads v. Louis Vuitton, S.A., 766 S.W.2d 377, 378-79 (Tex. 4 App. 1989). Here, Plaintiff concedes that the illegal entry prosecution was lawfully 5 instituted against ELA. Dkt. 17 at 20. Plaintiffs attack the Government’s reasoning for 6 engaging in the prosecution, but not the legality of the process itself. 7 Plaintiffs cite Duffie v. Wichita County in support of their request for 8 reconsideration, arguing that the Duffie defendants used a criminal legal process to 9 pursue an improper objective outside the process—much like the Government here. 10 Duffie v. Wichita County, 990 F. Supp. 2d 695 (N.D. Tex. 2013). The Court is not 11 persuaded. In Duffie, defendant Smith reported the arrest of two other nurses to the Texas 12 Board of Nursing, despite knowing that the charges brought against the nurses were 13 “false, meritless, and without probable cause,” in order to thwart an investigation into 14 Smith’s own conduct and to punish the nurses for taking part in whistleblower activity. 15 Id. at 720. The Texas court allowed the plaintiff’s abuse of process claim to proceed 16 because Smith wielded a bogus criminal proceeding in her reporting to the Board of 17 Nursing in order to achieve other aims. Id. In Duffie, the process was not used properly, 18 giving rise to an abuse of process cause of action. The Court does not see similar facts 19 here, where both parties concede that the prosecution against ELA was properly brought. 20 The Court finds that Plaintiffs have not provided a basis for the Court to 21 reconsider its ruling. Plaintiffs have failed to show manifest error in the prior ruling or 22 proffer any new facts or legal authority which could not have been brought to its attention 23 earlier with reasonable diligence. Reconsideration is unwarranted, and the motion is 24 therefore DENIED. 25 // 26 // 27 // 1 III. CONCLUSION 2 Based on the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs' motion for 3 reconsideration of the Court’s order dismissing Plaintiffs’ abuse of process claim without 4 prejudice. Dkt. # 37. Within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, Plaintiffs may file 5 an amended complaint addressing the deficiencies raised in the Court’s June 3, 2022 6 Order. If Plaintiffs do not file an amended complaint within that time, the Court may 7 dismiss the challenged claims. 8 9 DATED this 19th day of October, 2022. 10 A 11 12 The Honorable Richard A. Jones 13 United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27