Ewing v. City of Sedro Woolley

Opinion

1 2

3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT AT SEATTLE 7 KEVIN S. EWING, CASE NO. 2:24-cv-01307-JNW 8 Plaintiff, ORDER 9 v. 10 CITY OF SEDRO WOOLLEY; BROCK 11 D. STILES; JAMES M. ZACHOR; HEATHER SHAND; KEVIN L. 12 ROGERSON; DOES 1-10,

13 Defendants. 14 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Kevin S. Ewing’s motion for 15 reconsideration of the Court’s Order, at Dkt. No. 21, denying Ewing’s motions, at 16 Dkt. Nos. 9, 10, 11, for emergency injunctive relief. Dkt. No. 26. For the reasons 17 explained below, the Court DENIES Ewing’s motion for reconsideration. 18 “‘Motions for reconsideration are disfavored,” LCR 7(h)(1), and “should not be 19 granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented 20 with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening 21 change in the controlling law.’” Marlyn Natraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH 22 & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting 389 Orange St. Partners v. Arnold, 23 1 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir.1999)). “A motion for reconsideration ‘may not be used to 2 raise arguments or present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably

3 have been raised earlier in the litigation.’” Id. (quoting Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate 4 of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000)). “Whether… to grant reconsideration is 5 committed to the sound discretion of the court.” Navajo Nation v. Confederated 6 Tribes & Bands of the Yakama Indian Nation, 331 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th Cir. 2003). 7 Here, the Court soundly denied Ewing’s motions for emergency injunctive 8 relief based on a finding that Ewing “failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on

9 the merits because his claims are barred by Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971).” 10 Dkt. No. 21 at 6. In his motion for reconsideration and accompanying affidavit, 11 Ewing repeats his earlier arguments about the state court’s lack of jurisdiction over 12 his criminal case, including his assertion that the state court judges presiding over 13 his case have conflicts of interest and lack valid judicial authority. Dkt. Nos. 26, 27. 14 The Court already dismissed these arguments as bases for granting preliminary 15 injunctive relief. Ewing presents no “newly discovered evidence,” “clear error,” or

16 “intervening change in the controlling law” to warrant reconsideration of the 17 Court’s existing ruling. See Marlyn Natraceuticals, 571 F.3d at 880. 18 As such, Ewing’s request for reconsideration is DENIED. The Court’s Order 19 denying emergency injunctive relief, Dkt. No. 21, remains in effect. 20 Dated this 4th day of December, 2024. 21 a Jamal N. Whitehead 22 United States District Judge 23