1 2 3 4
5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 9 10 JUSTIN BAKER, CASE NO. 2:25-cv-02302-LK 11 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 12 v. WITHDRAW MOTION TO VOLUNTARILY DISMISS CASE; 13 WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT DENYING MOTIONS FOR OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES et RECONSIDERATION, SERVICE 14 al., OF PROCESS, AND DEFAULT 15 Defendants. 16
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Justin Baker’s motion to withdraw his 17 previously filed motion to voluntarily dismiss this case, Dkt. Nos. 17, 18, his motion for 18 reconsideration, Dkt. No. 10, his motion for service by the U.S. Marshals Service, Dkt. No. 12, his 19 praecipe regarding disability-related accommodations, Dkt. No. 13, and his notice of default, Dkt. 20 No. 19. For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants Mr. Baker’s motion to withdraw his 21 motion to dismiss, and denies his requests for reconsideration, service of process, disability-related 22 accommodations, and default. 23 24 1 I. BACKGROUND 2 On December 10, 2025, the Court dismissed Mr. Baker’s original complaint for failure to 3 state a claim, granted him leave to file an amended complaint, and denied his motion to appoint 4 counsel. See generally Dkt. No. 9. Mr. Baker then filed a “request for pleading codes and claims
5 legal relief and response to document 9,” Dkt. No. 10 at 1; a “motion requesting court approval of 6 intended amended statute codes and request for US Marshals service of Summons upon 7 defendant’s attorneys upon their request - after review of Case 2-25-cv-02302-lk Document 9,” 8 Dkt. No. 12 at 1; a praecipe regarding disability-related accommodations, Dkt. No. 13; an amended 9 complaint, Dkt. No. 14; a motion to voluntarily dismiss, Dkt. No. 17; a motion to withdraw the 10 motion to voluntarily dismiss, Dkt. No. 18, and a motion for default, Dkt. No. 19. 11 II. DISCUSSION 12 A. The Court Grants the Motion to Withdraw the Pending Motion to Dismiss 13 Mr. Baker has filed a “motion to withdraw [his] motion to dismiss,” stating that he “want[s] 14 to give this complicated litigation a shot while [he] still ha[s] this case open.” Dkt. No. 18 at 2.
15 Defendants, who have not yet been served, have not responded to either the motion to dismiss or 16 the motion to withdraw that motion. 17 Under Local Civil Rule 7(l), “[a] moving party may withdraw its own pending motion by 18 filing a Notice to Withdraw Pending Motion.” Although Mr. Baker did not title his motion to 19 withdraw the pending motion as a notice, the Court construes it as such and allows him to withdraw 20 his motion to voluntarily dismiss the case. 21 B. The Court Denies the Request for Reconsideration and Accommodations 22 Because Mr. Baker is proceeding pro se, the Court construes his “response to document 23 9,” Dkt. No. 10 at 1, as a request that the Court reconsider its prior ruling denying his motion for
24 appointment of counsel. His other filings also suggest that he may be seeking reconsideration of 1 that ruling. See id. (stating that he “need[s] somebody to assist” him with meeting the pleading 2 requirements “and only the court would be able to provide that assistance”); Dkt. No. 17 at 1 3 (moving to dismiss his complaint “unless your court can appoint representation to prevent having 4 to refile”); Dkt. No. 18 at 1 (stating that “it would be extremely helpful if your court could appoint
5 an attorney to help and assist me”). 6 Motions for reconsideration are disfavored under the local rules, and the Court “will 7 ordinarily deny such motions in the absence of a showing of manifest error in the prior ruling or a 8 showing of new facts or legal authority which could not have been brought to its attention earlier 9 with reasonable diligence.” LCR 7(h)(1); see also Kona Enters., Inc. v. Est. of Bishop, 229 F.3d 10 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000) (noting that reconsideration is an “extraordinary remedy, to be used 11 sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources” (citation modified)). 12 Movants are required to “point out with specificity the matters which the movant believes were 13 overlooked or misapprehended by the court, any new matters being brought to the court’s attention 14 for the first time, and the particular modifications being sought in the court’s prior ruling.” LCR
15 7(h)(2). A motion for reconsideration does not “provide litigants with a second bite at the apple.” 16 Stevens v. Pierce Cnty., No. C22-5862 BHS, 2023 WL 6807204, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 16, 2023). 17 Movants must also “plainly” label their motions for reconsideration as such, and file them within 18 14 days of the order to which they relate. LCR 7(h)(2). 19 Regardless of whether the Court construes Mr. Baker’s filings as motions for 20 reconsideration or new motions to appoint counsel, Mr. Baker has not shown that “exceptional 21 circumstances” warrant the appointment of counsel. Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 22 (9th Cir. 1986) (citing former version of statute); see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). A thorough review 23 of the amended complaint, Dkt. No. 14, does not reveal a likelihood of success or legally or
24 factually complex issues that would preclude Mr. Baker from adequately articulating his claims 1 pro se. See Siglar v. Hopkins, 822 F. App'x 610, 612 (9th Cir. 2020). Accordingly, the Court denies 2 his request for reconsideration and appointment of counsel. 3 Mr. Baker’s motion to withdraw his motion to dismiss also requests disability-related 4 accommodations. He states,
5 I am in no way shape or form in good health at the moment, and I will need some accommodations from the court to move at a slower pace and try to understand 6 these technical deadlines and requirements and other factors of this litigation, including discovery meetings and motions etc, and it would be extremely helpful if 7 your court could appoint an attorney to help and assist me[.] 8 Dkt. No. 18 at 1. Relatedly, he filed a praecipe attaching a note from a physician listing his medical 9 conditions and stating, “Please provide standard disability accommodations per ADA.” Dkt. No. 10 13 at 1. As set forth above, Mr. Baker is not entitled to the appointment of counsel. Nor does he 11 identify any other specific accommodation he seeks or show that he is entitled to 12 accommodations.1 The Court thus declines to grant an accommodation. 13 C. The Court Denies the Motions for Service of Process and Default 14 Mr. Baker has moved to have the U.S. Marshal Service serve Defendants on his behalf 15 because he is “disabled and approved for in forma pauperis status[.]” Dkt. No. 12 at 3. However, 16 the addresses and recipients in the summons Mr. Baker filed, Dkt. Nos. 1-4–1-9, do not match the 17 recipients and addresses in Mr. Baker’s motion for service, Dkt. No. 12 at 2. Nor has he submitted 18 amended summons. Accordingly, the Court denies Mr. Baker’s motion for service without 19 prejudice. Within 14 days of the date of this order, Mr. Baker must either file amended summons 20 and a renewed motion for service, or request that the Court issue the summons he previously filed, 21 Dkt. Nos. 1-4–1-9, so that he can serve Defendants himself. 22 23 1 The Court further notes that the Americans with Disabilities Act does not apply to federal courts. 42 U.S.C. 24 § 12131(1); Roman v. Jefferson at Hollywood LP, 495 F. App'x 804, 806 (9th Cir. 2012). 1 Because Mr. Baker has not served Defendants, he is not entitled to default against them.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4
5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 9 10 JUSTIN BAKER, CASE NO. 2:25-cv-02302-LK 11 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 12 v. WITHDRAW MOTION TO VOLUNTARILY DISMISS CASE; 13 WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT DENYING MOTIONS FOR OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES et RECONSIDERATION, SERVICE 14 al., OF PROCESS, AND DEFAULT 15 Defendants. 16
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Justin Baker’s motion to withdraw his 17 previously filed motion to voluntarily dismiss this case, Dkt. Nos. 17, 18, his motion for 18 reconsideration, Dkt. No. 10, his motion for service by the U.S. Marshals Service, Dkt. No. 12, his 19 praecipe regarding disability-related accommodations, Dkt. No. 13, and his notice of default, Dkt. 20 No. 19. For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants Mr. Baker’s motion to withdraw his 21 motion to dismiss, and denies his requests for reconsideration, service of process, disability-related 22 accommodations, and default. 23 24 1 I. BACKGROUND 2 On December 10, 2025, the Court dismissed Mr. Baker’s original complaint for failure to 3 state a claim, granted him leave to file an amended complaint, and denied his motion to appoint 4 counsel. See generally Dkt. No. 9. Mr. Baker then filed a “request for pleading codes and claims
5 legal relief and response to document 9,” Dkt. No. 10 at 1; a “motion requesting court approval of 6 intended amended statute codes and request for US Marshals service of Summons upon 7 defendant’s attorneys upon their request - after review of Case 2-25-cv-02302-lk Document 9,” 8 Dkt. No. 12 at 1; a praecipe regarding disability-related accommodations, Dkt. No. 13; an amended 9 complaint, Dkt. No. 14; a motion to voluntarily dismiss, Dkt. No. 17; a motion to withdraw the 10 motion to voluntarily dismiss, Dkt. No. 18, and a motion for default, Dkt. No. 19. 11 II. DISCUSSION 12 A. The Court Grants the Motion to Withdraw the Pending Motion to Dismiss 13 Mr. Baker has filed a “motion to withdraw [his] motion to dismiss,” stating that he “want[s] 14 to give this complicated litigation a shot while [he] still ha[s] this case open.” Dkt. No. 18 at 2.
15 Defendants, who have not yet been served, have not responded to either the motion to dismiss or 16 the motion to withdraw that motion. 17 Under Local Civil Rule 7(l), “[a] moving party may withdraw its own pending motion by 18 filing a Notice to Withdraw Pending Motion.” Although Mr. Baker did not title his motion to 19 withdraw the pending motion as a notice, the Court construes it as such and allows him to withdraw 20 his motion to voluntarily dismiss the case. 21 B. The Court Denies the Request for Reconsideration and Accommodations 22 Because Mr. Baker is proceeding pro se, the Court construes his “response to document 23 9,” Dkt. No. 10 at 1, as a request that the Court reconsider its prior ruling denying his motion for
24 appointment of counsel. His other filings also suggest that he may be seeking reconsideration of 1 that ruling. See id. (stating that he “need[s] somebody to assist” him with meeting the pleading 2 requirements “and only the court would be able to provide that assistance”); Dkt. No. 17 at 1 3 (moving to dismiss his complaint “unless your court can appoint representation to prevent having 4 to refile”); Dkt. No. 18 at 1 (stating that “it would be extremely helpful if your court could appoint
5 an attorney to help and assist me”). 6 Motions for reconsideration are disfavored under the local rules, and the Court “will 7 ordinarily deny such motions in the absence of a showing of manifest error in the prior ruling or a 8 showing of new facts or legal authority which could not have been brought to its attention earlier 9 with reasonable diligence.” LCR 7(h)(1); see also Kona Enters., Inc. v. Est. of Bishop, 229 F.3d 10 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000) (noting that reconsideration is an “extraordinary remedy, to be used 11 sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources” (citation modified)). 12 Movants are required to “point out with specificity the matters which the movant believes were 13 overlooked or misapprehended by the court, any new matters being brought to the court’s attention 14 for the first time, and the particular modifications being sought in the court’s prior ruling.” LCR
15 7(h)(2). A motion for reconsideration does not “provide litigants with a second bite at the apple.” 16 Stevens v. Pierce Cnty., No. C22-5862 BHS, 2023 WL 6807204, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 16, 2023). 17 Movants must also “plainly” label their motions for reconsideration as such, and file them within 18 14 days of the order to which they relate. LCR 7(h)(2). 19 Regardless of whether the Court construes Mr. Baker’s filings as motions for 20 reconsideration or new motions to appoint counsel, Mr. Baker has not shown that “exceptional 21 circumstances” warrant the appointment of counsel. Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 22 (9th Cir. 1986) (citing former version of statute); see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). A thorough review 23 of the amended complaint, Dkt. No. 14, does not reveal a likelihood of success or legally or
24 factually complex issues that would preclude Mr. Baker from adequately articulating his claims 1 pro se. See Siglar v. Hopkins, 822 F. App'x 610, 612 (9th Cir. 2020). Accordingly, the Court denies 2 his request for reconsideration and appointment of counsel. 3 Mr. Baker’s motion to withdraw his motion to dismiss also requests disability-related 4 accommodations. He states,
5 I am in no way shape or form in good health at the moment, and I will need some accommodations from the court to move at a slower pace and try to understand 6 these technical deadlines and requirements and other factors of this litigation, including discovery meetings and motions etc, and it would be extremely helpful if 7 your court could appoint an attorney to help and assist me[.] 8 Dkt. No. 18 at 1. Relatedly, he filed a praecipe attaching a note from a physician listing his medical 9 conditions and stating, “Please provide standard disability accommodations per ADA.” Dkt. No. 10 13 at 1. As set forth above, Mr. Baker is not entitled to the appointment of counsel. Nor does he 11 identify any other specific accommodation he seeks or show that he is entitled to 12 accommodations.1 The Court thus declines to grant an accommodation. 13 C. The Court Denies the Motions for Service of Process and Default 14 Mr. Baker has moved to have the U.S. Marshal Service serve Defendants on his behalf 15 because he is “disabled and approved for in forma pauperis status[.]” Dkt. No. 12 at 3. However, 16 the addresses and recipients in the summons Mr. Baker filed, Dkt. Nos. 1-4–1-9, do not match the 17 recipients and addresses in Mr. Baker’s motion for service, Dkt. No. 12 at 2. Nor has he submitted 18 amended summons. Accordingly, the Court denies Mr. Baker’s motion for service without 19 prejudice. Within 14 days of the date of this order, Mr. Baker must either file amended summons 20 and a renewed motion for service, or request that the Court issue the summons he previously filed, 21 Dkt. Nos. 1-4–1-9, so that he can serve Defendants himself. 22 23 1 The Court further notes that the Americans with Disabilities Act does not apply to federal courts. 42 U.S.C. 24 § 12131(1); Roman v. Jefferson at Hollywood LP, 495 F. App'x 804, 806 (9th Cir. 2012). 1 Because Mr. Baker has not served Defendants, he is not entitled to default against them. 2 See LCR 55(a) (a party moving for default must file an affidavit that “show[s] that the defaulting 3 party was served in a manner authorized by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4.”). The Court thus denies his motion 4 for default. Dkt. No. 19.
5 Finally, the Court reminds Ms. Baker that pro se litigants are subject to the same procedural 6 requirements as other litigants. Munoz Gonzalez v. United States, 28 F.4th 973, 978 (9th Cir. 2022). 7 This entails strict compliance with applicable law, including but not limited to the Federal Rules 8 of Civil Procedure and Local Civil Rules. See Chan v. Ryan, No. 22-CV-01796-LK, 2023 WL 9 197429, at *4 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 17, 2023). The Court refers Mr. Baker to the Federal Rules of 10 Civil Procedure, available at https://www.uscourts.gov/rules-policies/current-rules-practice- 11 procedure/federal-rules-civil-procedure, the Local Civil Rules for the Western District of 12 Washington, available at 13 https://www.wawd.uscourts.gov/sites/wawd/files/032725%20WAWD%20Local%20Civil%20R 14 ules%20-%20Clean.pdf, and the Western District of Washington’s guide for pro se litigants,
15 available at https://www.wawd.uscourts.gov/representing-yourself-pro-se. Failure to comply with 16 applicable laws, rules, or orders may result in sanctions up to and including revocation of e-filing 17 privileges and dismissal of the case altogether. 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a); see also Ghazali v. Moran, 18 46 F.3d 52, 53–54 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (failure of pro se litigant to follow procedural rules 19 justified dismissal of civil rights action); DeLong v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144, 1148 (9th Cir. 20 1990); Shankar v. Microsoft Corp., No. C24-0308-JCC, 2024 WL 4664413, at *1–2 (W.D. Wash. 21 Nov. 4, 2024) (revoking e-filing privileges after pro se plaintiff ignored Court’s directives 22 regarding proper filings). 23
24 1 III. CONCLUSION 2 For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Mr. Baker’s motion, Dkt. No. 18, to 3 withdraw his previously filed motion to voluntarily dismiss this case, Dkt. No. 17, DENIES his 4 request for reconsideration, Dkt. No. 10, DENIES without prejudice his motion for service, Dkt.
5 No. 12, and DENIES his motion for default, Dkt. No. 19. Within 14 days of the date of this Order, 6 Mr. Baker must either file amended summons and a renewed motion for service, or request that 7 the Court issue the summons he previously filed, Dkt. Nos. 1-4–1-9, so that he can serve 8 Defendants himself. If he does not timely do so, the Court will dismiss this case without prejudice. 9 Dated this 27th day of January, 2026. 10 A 11 Lauren King United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23