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 Pro se Plaintiff Kevin S. Ewing moves for relief from the Court’s final 15 judgment dismissing his claims based on what he characterizes as newly discovered 16 evidence. Dkt. No. 43. 17 “Relief from judgment on the basis of newly discovered evidence is warranted 18 if (1) the moving party can show the evidence relied on in fact constitutes newly 19 discovered evidence within the meaning of Rule 60(b); (2) the moving party 20 exercised due diligence to discover this evidence; and (3) the newly discovered 21 evidence must be of such magnitude that production of it earlier would have been 22 likely to change the disposition of the case.” Feature Realty, Inc. v. City of Spokane, 23 1 331 F.3d 1082, 1093 (9th Cir. 2003) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); 2 see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).

3 Ewing’s motion fails for three reasons. First, the supposedly “new” evidence 4 that Ewing cites—a “notice and complaint” from a “local government watchdog and 5 independent reporter” purporting to show that “Defendant [Judge] Stiles lacked a 6 filed oath or bond and appointed Defendant Rogerson as a pro tem judge in violation 7 of [municipal codes]”—is not actually new. See Dkt. Nos. 43 at 2, 43-1 at 11. Ewing 8 filed the same evidence at Dkt. No. 36-1 in support of his second motion to

9 reconsider, which the Court denied. Dkt. No. 38 at 2 (“[T]his new evidence—a notice 10 and complaint from a ‘local government watchdog and independent reporter’—is not 11 at all persuasive and does not shake the Court’s belief that it decided the issue 12 correctly.”). 13 Second, the record suggests that Ewing is incorrect in his assertion that 14 Stiles and Rogerson failed to file Oaths of Office with the City of Sedro-Woolley. See 15 Dkt. No. 37-1 (signed Oaths of Office).

16 Third, even if Ewing were correct that Stiles and Rogerson failed to file the 17 requisite oaths of office or otherwise comply with municipal laws governing judicial 18 appointments, the Court’s disposition of Ewing’s claims would not be altered. See 19 Dkt. No. 39 at 10 (Dismissal Order) (“If [Ewing’s] argument [regarding Defendants’ 20 failure to file oaths of office] represents an attempt to establish that these 21 Defendants were not acting in their judicial capacities—and are thus not immune—

22 the Court is not persuaded.”); see also, e.g., Conklin v. Anthou, 495 Fed. Appx. 257, 23 264 (3d Cir. 2012) (“Even assuming that the defendants [judges and others] had not, 1 in fact, taken their oaths of office . . . [plaintiff] points to no case law that would 2 support the conclusion that this omission abrogated claims to immunity.”)

3 For these reasons, Ewing’s motion for relief from judgment is DENIED. Dkt. 4 No. 43. 5 Dated this 4th day of April, 2025. 6 a Jamal N. Whitehead 7 United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

22 23