Gomes v. Memorial Hospital

• Court: District Court, E.D. Washington
• Decided: August 11, 2020
• Docket: 1:19-cv-03094
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 FILED IN THE EASTERU N. S D. I SD TI RS IT CR TI C OT F C WO AU SR HT I NGTON 2 Aug 11, 2020

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 4 ROBERT LARAMIE GOMES, No. 1:19-cv-3094-SMJ 5 Plaintiff, 6 ORDER DENYING CONSTRUED v. MOTION FOR 7 RECONSIDERATION MEMORIAL HOSPTIAL, 8 Defendant. 9

10 Before the Court, without oral argument, is Plaintiff Robert Laramie Gomes’s 11 construed Motion for Reconsideration, ECF No. 30. Plaintiff asks the Court to 12 reconsider its Order Dismissing Action, issued on June 11, 2020, ECF No. 27. 13 Plaintiff subsequently notified the Court of his release from incarceration. ECF 14 No. 31. Having reviewed the filings and the record in this matter, the Court is fully 15 informed and denies the construed Motion for Reconsideration. 16 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 17 A motion for reconsideration may be reviewed under either Federal Rule of 18 Civil Procedure 59(e) (motion to alter or amend a judgment) or 60(b) (relief from 19 judgment). Sch. Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). “A 20 district court may properly reconsider its decision if it ‘(1) is presented with newly 1 discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly 2 unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.’” Smith v. Clark

3 Cty. Sch. Dist., 727 F.3d 950, 955 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Sch. Dist. No. 1J, 5 F.3d 4 at 1263). “There may also be other, highly unusual, circumstances warranting 5 reconsideration.” Sch. Dist. No. 1J, 5 F.3d at 1263.

6 Petitioner states he will amend his Complaint again to specify a dollar amount 7 in the relief section and that he was unable to “just go to the Hospital to retrieve 8 policy or custom of Memorial Hospital” due to his incarceration. ECF No. 30 at 1. 9 These assertions are insufficient to overcome the Court’s prior determination that

10 further amendment would be futile. See ECF No. 27 at 4. 11 Petitioner has not presented newly discovered evidence, demonstrated that the 12 Court committed clear error, or shown that the Order dismissing this action because

13 the First Amended Complaint failed to state plausible claims for relief was 14 manifestly unjust. There has also been no intervening change in controlling law and 15 there are no other circumstances warranting reconsideration. Id. 16 //

17 // 18 // 19 //

20 // l Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 2 Plaintiff's construed Motion for Reconsideration, ECF No. 30, is 3 DENIED. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk’s Office is directed to enter this Order and provide a copy to pro se Plaintiff at his last known address. The file shall remain CLOSED. 7 DATED this 11" day of August 2020. 8 9 soe CALVADOR MENESGHiA, JR. 10 United States District Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

ORDER DENYING CONSTRUED MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION -— 3