Green v. United States of America
Opinion
1 HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT AT SEATTLE 10
12 Plaintiff, Case No. 2:21-cv-1276-RAJ-DWC 13 v.
14 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et ORDER 15 al.,
16 Defendants.
17 19 THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Plaintiff Carolyn Sioux Green’s 20 Motion for Reconsideration (“Motion”). Dkt. # 258. This motion may be resolved 21 without oral argument. See LCR 7(b)(4). Having reviewed the motion, record, and 22 relevant law, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion. 24 On September 20, 2021, Plaintiff filed a complaint against the United States of 25 America, the United States Coast Guard, and the United States Department of Veterans 26 Affairs (“Defendants”). Dkt. # 1. On November 25, 2021, Plaintiff filed a First Amended 27 Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief and Damages (“Complaint”). Dkt. # 30. 1 Plaintiff alleges Defendants are liable for discrimination, sexual harassment, retaliation, 2 and equal protection and due process violations arising from conduct that occurred in 3 1994 and 1995 when Plaintiff was an active member of the Coast Guard. Id. Plaintiff also 4 alleges violations of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Eighth and 5 Fourteenth Amendments, and the Federal Torts Claim Act related to medical treatment 6 administered in 2001 by the Department of Veterans Affairs. Id. 7 On February 7, 2022, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss to dismiss the 8 Complaint with prejudice. Dkt. # 42. On July 11, 2022, the Honorable David W. Christel 9 entered a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), recommending that the Court, among 10 other things, grant Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Dkt. # 219. On October 7, 2022, the 11 Court, having reviewed the R&R, Plaintiff’s objections (Dkt. # 226-238, 240-246, 248- 12 250), Defendants’ response to Plaintiff’s objections (Dkt. # 247), and the record, adopted 13 the R&R and granted the Defendants’ motion to dismiss with prejudice. Dkt. # 253. 14 On October 12, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal to the Ninth Circuit. Dkt. # 15 255. Then, on October 22, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s 16 order dismissing Plaintiff’s claims. Dkt. # 258. On May 3, 2023, the Ninth Circuit 17 indicated that Plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary injunction on March 3, 2023. Dkt. 18 # 276. The Ninth Circuit ordered that all appellate briefing and motions be held in 19 abeyance pending this Court’s resolution of Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration. Id. 20 The Court addresses Plaintiff’s request for reconsideration below. 22 Motions for reconsideration are governed by Local Rule 7(h), which provides the 23 following:
24 Motions for reconsideration are disfavored. The court will ordinarily deny such 25 motions in the absence of a showing of manifest error in the prior ruling or a showing of new facts or legal authority which could not have been brought to its 26 attention earlier with reasonable diligence.
27 1 Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 7(h)(1). A motion for reconsideration must be filed within 2 fourteen days after the order to which it relates is filed. LCR 7(h)(2). 3 In the Complaint, Plaintiff concedes that this lawsuit was not timely filed, but 4 asserts that she is entitled to equitable tolling due to mental and physical impairments that 5 prevented her from understanding the nature of the proceedings. Dkt. # 30 at 236. 6 Here, in the instant motion for reconsideration, Plaintiff again argues that 7 equitable tolling should apply because Plaintiff experienced cognitive impairment and 8 functional delays that prevented her from filing a timely complaint. Dkt. # 258 at 10, 13. 9 However, Plaintiff’s assertions that her incapacitation prevented her from filing this 10 lawsuit are undermined by the fact that she wrote a book that was published in 2020 (Dkt. 11 # 186 at 19), she attended college from 2007 to 2014 with the assistance of a tutor (Dkt. # 12 30 at 306), and she had a photography business from 2014 to 2018 and planned a frozen 13 cookie business in 2001. Dkt. # 186 at 10; Dkt. # 66 at 53 (2018 registration with the U.S. 14 Patent and Trademark Office for mark for photography services); Dkt. # 67 at 7 (2014 15 registration with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office for mark for photography 16 services); Dkt. # 110-3 at 18 (certificate of formation for photography business dated 17 September 22, 2014); Dkt. # 110 (frozen cookie business evidence). Additionally, 18 Plaintiff filed for restoration of her firearms rights in August of 2019, showing she had 19 the ability to pursue other claims. Dkt. # 30 at 309. Plaintiff’s ability to engage in these 20 activities contradicts her prior conclusory allegations that she was incapacitated and 21 unable to file this lawsuit. 22 Therefore, as previously ruled by this Court, Plaintiff still cannot show she is 23 entitled to equitable tolling due to her mental and physical impairments. See Palmer v. 24 Lucine, 310 F. App’x 155, 156 (9th Cir. 2009) (finding the district court did not abuse its 25 discretion in finding equitable tolling was not warranted where the plaintiff was able to 26 engage in various activities during the time he contended he was physically and mentally 27 unable to file suit); Daviscourt v. United States, No. C20-720 RSM, 2021 WL 22111, at 1 *2 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 4, 2021) (finding a plaintiff’s ability to actively engage in other 2 activities prior to filing his claim and alleged mental impairments were not sufficient to 3 show he was entitled to equitable tolling). Plaintiff fails to present new facts or legal 4 authority compelling a different result. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, is therefore 7 Petitioner has failed to demonstrate manifest error in the Court’s prior ruling or 8 new facts or legal authority which could not have been brought to the Court’s attention 9 earlier with reasonable diligence. Therefore, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for 10 Reconsideration, Dkt. # 258. 11 12 DATED this 31st day of July, 2023. 13 14 A 15
The Honorable Richard A. Jones 16 United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Green v. United States of America (Green v. United States of America) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.