George v. Moz

• Court: District Court, E.D. Washington
• Decided: May 6, 2025
• Docket: 1:24-cv-03158
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 FILED IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 3 May 06, 2025 4 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 7 MONIQUE GEORGE and VESZONO No. 1:24-CV-03158-RLP GEORGE, 8 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR Plaintiffs, RECONSIDERATION 9 v. 10 MERLY H. MOZ and MARIAH 11 FRAIDE Defendants. 12 BEFORE THE COURT is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration, ECF No. 13 13. This matter was submitted to the Court without oral argument. 14 Reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the 15 interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Kona Enterprises, Inc. 16 v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). A motion for 17 reconsideration of a judgment may be reviewed under either Federal Rule of Civil 18 Procedure 59(e) (motion to alter or amend a judgment) or Rule 60(b) (relief from 19 judgment). Sch. Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). 20 “Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with newly 1 discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was 2 manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” Id. at

3 1263; United Nat. Ins. Co. v. Spectrum Worldwide, Inc., 555 F.3d 772, 780 (9th 4 Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). Whether to grant a motion for reconsideration is 5 within the sound discretion of the court. Navajo Nation v. Confederated Tribes and

6 Bands of the Yakima Nation, 331 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th Cir. 2003). 7 Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration again requests the Court to appoint 8 counsel under 25 U.S.C. § 175 and includes a new request for appointment of 9 counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). In support of their requests, Plaintiffs argue

10 the merits of their lawsuit and contend they have been unable to retain counsel 11 themselves due to unspecified financial, geographic, and legal barriers. As with 12 Plaintiffs’ Motion for United States Attorneys to Represent Indians, ECF No. 11,

13 Plaintiffs fail to demonstrate they are legally entitled to appointment of counsel 14 under 25 U.S.C. § 175. As Plaintiffs do not meet the standards for reconsideration, 15 their motion is denied. 16 With regards to Plaintiffs’ new request for appointment of counsel under 28

17 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), ECF No. 13-6, Plaintiffs are directed to make this request in a 18 separate motion and to file with it an in forma pauperis financial affidavit (Form 19 AO 240) demonstrating their indigency.

20 ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1 1. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration of Order Denying Plaintiffs’ 2 Request for United States Attorney to Represent Indians, ECF No. 13, 3 is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 The District Court Executive is directed to enter this Order and forward 6|| copies to the parties. 7 DATED May 6, 2025.

9 □ REBECCA L.PENNELL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

ARNLR NDENVING UOTION CAR RECONCINER ATION * 2