Johnson v. Kariko

Opinion

1 2 3

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 7 ROBERT EARLE JOHNSON, CASE NO. C20-5514 BHS 8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 9 v. RECONSIDERATION 10 SARAH KARIKO, et al., 11 Defendants. 12

13 THIS MATTER is before the Court on pro se Plaintiff Robert Earle Johnson’s 14 Motion for Reconsideration, or to Amend or Alter Judgment. Dkt. 118. Johnson asks the 15 Court to reconsider its order, Dkt. 116, adopting Magistrate Judge Creatura’s Report and 16 Recommendation (“R&R”) and dismissing his § 1983 claims with prejudice and without 17 leave to amend. Johnson argues that his objections to that R&R mistakenly re-hashed the 18 arguments he made in response to the underlying summary judgment motion, Dkt. 81. 19 The facts of the case are detailed in the R&R and in the Court’s prior Order. 20 Johnson argues that the Court is required to review the motion and his claims and 21 evidence de novo, even now, under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. Dkt. 118 22 at 4. 1 The Court disagrees. First, as the Court explained in its prior Order, objections to 2 an R&R that simply reiterate the prior arguments are not entitled to de novo review. 3 There is no benefit to the judiciary “if the district court[] is required to review the entire

4 matter de novo because the objecting party merely repeats the arguments rejected by the 5 magistrate. In such situations, this Court follows other courts that have overruled the 6 objections without analysis.” Hagberg v. Astrue, No. CV-09-01-BLG-RFC-CSO, 2009 7 WL 3386595, at *1 (D. Mont. Oct. 14, 2009). In short, an objection to a magistrate’s 8 findings and recommendations “is not a vehicle for the losing party to relitigate its case.”

9 Id.; see also Conner v. Kirkegard, No. CV 15-81-H-DLC-JTJ, 2018 WL 830142, at *1 10 (D. Mont. Feb. 12, 2018); Fix v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co., CV 16-41-M-DLC- 11 JCL, 2017 Wl 2721168, at *1 (D. Mont. June 23, 2017) (collecting cases); Eagleman v. 12 Shinn, No. CV-18-2708-PHX-RM (DTF), 019 Wl 7019414, at *4 (D. Ariz. Dec. 20, 13 2019) (“[O]bjections that merely repeat or rehash claims asserted in the Petition, which

14 the magistrate judge has already addressed in the R&R are not sufficient under Fed. R. 15 Civ. P. 72.”). 16 Second, despite his claim that his motion seeks to alter or amend the Court’s 17 judgment under Rule 59, Johnson’s motion is one for reconsideration of the Court’s order 18 adopting the R&R. The motion was filed on September 9, some 27 days after the Court’s

19 order. Under Local Rule 7(h)(3), Johnson was required to file his motion within fourteen 20 days of the Order to which it relates. Thus, the motion is untimely. 21 It is also substantively deficient. Under Local Rule 7(h)(1), motions for 22 reconsideration are disfavored, and will ordinarily be denied unless there is a showing of 1 (a) manifest error in the ruling, or (b) facts or legal authority which could not have been 2 brought to the attention of the Court earlier, through reasonable diligence. The term 3 “manifest error” is “an error that is plain and indisputable, and that amounts to a complete

4 disregard of the controlling law or the credible evidence in the record.” Black’s Law 5 Dictionary (11th ed. 2019). 6 Reconsideration is an “extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests 7 of finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Est. of Bishop, 8 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). “[A] motion for reconsideration should not be granted,

9 absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly 10 discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the 11 controlling law.” Marlyn Natraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 12 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009). Neither the Local Civil Rules nor the Federal Rules of Civil 13 Procedure, which allow for a motion for reconsideration, is intended to provide litigants

14 with a second bite at the apple. A motion for reconsideration should not be used to ask a 15 court to rethink what the court had already thought through—rightly or wrongly. Defs. of 16 Wildlife v. Browner, 909 F.Supp. 1342, 1351 (D. Ariz. 1995). Mere disagreement with a 17 previous order is an insufficient basis for reconsideration, and reconsideration may not be 18 based on evidence and legal arguments that could have been presented at the time of the

19 challenged decision. Haw. Stevedores, Inc. v. HT & T Co., 363 F. Supp. 2d 1253, 1269 20 (D. Haw. 2005). “Whether or not to grant reconsideration is committed to the sound 21 discretion of the court.” Navajo Nation v. Confederated Tribes & Bands of the Yakima 22 Indian Nation, 331 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th Cir. 2003). 1 Johnson’s motion does not meet this standard, and the Court will not reconsider its 2 prior order. His motion, Dkt. 118, is DENIED and the matter remains closed. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED.

4 Dated this 4th day of November, 2022. A 5 6 BENJAMIN H. SETTLE 7 United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22