Hawkins v. Andrewjeski

Opinion

1 2 FILED IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 3 Aug 17, 2023 4 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 9 JONATHAN BROOKS HAWKINS, 10 Petitioner, No. 2:22-CV-00225-SAB 11 v. 12 MELISSA ANDREWJESKI, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 13 Respondent. AMEND OR VACATE 14 JUDGMENT 15 16 Before the Court is Petitioner’s Motion to Amend or Vacate Judgment, 17 ECF No. 13. The motion was heard without oral argument. Petitioner Jonathan 18 Brooks Hawkins is represented by Jeffrey Erwin Ellis. Respondent Melissa 19 Andrewjeski is represented by Christopher Mark Fowler. 20 Motions for reconsideration may be reviewed under either Federal Rule of 21 Civil Procedure 59(e) (motion to alter or amend a judgment) or 60(b) (relief from 22 judgment). Sch. Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). 23 Reconsideration of a judgment is an extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in 24 the interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources. Kona Enterprises, 25 Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). “A district court may 26 properly reconsider its decision if it ‘(1) is presented with newly discovered 27 evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or 28 (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.’” Smith v. Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist., 727 F.3d 950, 955 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Sch. Dist. No. 1J, 5 F.3d at 1263). Whether to grant a motion for reconsideration is within the sound discretion of the 3|| court. Navajo Nation v. Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakima Nation, 331 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th Cir. 2003). 5 Petitioner failed to meet the standard for reconsideration outlined by Rule 49(e) or 60(b). Petitioner did not meet any of the three grounds for reconsideration outlined in Smith. Therefore, this extraordinary remedy is not available, and the motion is denied. 9 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 10 1. Petitioner’s Motion to Amend or Vacate Judgment, ECF No. 13, DENIED. 12 2. The above-captioned case remains closed. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Clerk is hereby directed to file this Order and provide copies to counsel. 15 DATED this 17th day of August 2023. 16 17 18 ‘ 9 Sfraleyld Eee Yoar 20 Stanley A. Bastian 21 Chief United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

QNDNTD NOEONVING MATION TA ANIENTD AD VACATE TWINCMWENT *9