Kirk L. Williams v. United States Air Force Base in Fairfax and Film Forming Foams Prolab

E.D. Washington

Kirk L. Williams v. United States Air Force Base in Fairfax and Film Forming Foams Prolab

DecidedNovember 12, 2025

Docket2:25-cv-00276

StatusUnknown

This text of Kirk L. Williams v. United States Air Force Base in Fairfax and Film Forming Foams Prolab (Kirk L. Williams v. United States Air Force Base in Fairfax and Film Forming Foams Prolab) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kirk L. Williams v. United States Air Force Base in Fairfax and Film Forming Foams Prolab, (E.D. Wash. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 FILED IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT 2 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON Nov 12, 2025 3 4 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 9 10 KIRK L. WILLIAMS, No. 2:25-CV-00276-SAB 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. ORDER DENYING RULE 59 13 UNITED STATES AIR FORCE MOTION 14 BASE IN FAIRFAX and FILM 15 FORMING FOAMS PROLAB, 16 Defendants. 17 18 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s “Rule 59 Motion to Alter or Amend the 19 Judgment,” submitted on October 9, 2025. ECF No. 13. By Order filed October 2, 20 2025, the Court dismissed this action without prejudice for non-payment of the 21 filing fee after Plaintiff failed to comply with the in forma pauperis requirements 22 of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and (2). ECF No. 11. Judgement was entered the same 23 day. ECF No. 12. Plaintiff, an individual incarcerated at the Stafford Creek 24 Corrections Center, is proceeding pro se. Defendants have not been served. 25 Plaintiff asks the Court to reinstate his complaint. ECF No. 13 at 3. He 26 asserts that he made a “mistake,” but he does not identify the mistake. Id. at 2. He 27 asks the Court to consider his incarceration. Id. at 2–3. Plaintiff does not state how 28 this prevented him from completing and submitting documents needed to proceed 1|| in forma pauperis in a timely fashion as previously directed by the Court. A motion for reconsideration of a judgment may be reviewed under either 3|| Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) (motion to alter or amend a judgment) or Rule 60(b) (relief from judgment). Sch. Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). “Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” /d. at 1263; United Nat. Ins. Co. v. Spectrum Worldwide, Inc., 9)|555 F.3d 772, 780 (9th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). Whether to grant a motion for reconsideration is within the sound discretion of the court. Navajo Nation v. 11|| Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakima Nation, 331 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th Cir. 2003). For the reasons articulated in the Order Dismissing Action, ECF No. Plaintiff's motion is DENIED. 14 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 15 1. Plaintiff's Rule 59 Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment, ECF No. 16| 13, is DENIED. 17 2. The file shall remain CLOSED. 18 3. The Court certifies that any appeal of this decision would not be taken in good faith. 20 IT ISSO ORDERED. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter this Order 21||and provide a copy to Plaintiff. 22 DATED this 12th day of November 2025.

: Soba 26 Chief United States District Judge 27 28

ADTATD TRADAIWTTAIA DITO CARTIATIART On

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 FILED IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT 2 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON Nov 12, 2025 3 4 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 9 10 KIRK L. WILLIAMS, No. 2:25-CV-00276-SAB 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. ORDER DENYING RULE 59 13 UNITED STATES AIR FORCE MOTION 14 BASE IN FAIRFAX and FILM 15 FORMING FOAMS PROLAB, 16 Defendants. 17 18 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s “Rule 59 Motion to Alter or Amend the 19 Judgment,” submitted on October 9, 2025. ECF No. 13. By Order filed October 2, 20 2025, the Court dismissed this action without prejudice for non-payment of the 21 filing fee after Plaintiff failed to comply with the in forma pauperis requirements 22 of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and (2). ECF No. 11. Judgement was entered the same 23 day. ECF No. 12. Plaintiff, an individual incarcerated at the Stafford Creek 24 Corrections Center, is proceeding pro se. Defendants have not been served. 25 Plaintiff asks the Court to reinstate his complaint. ECF No. 13 at 3. He 26 asserts that he made a “mistake,” but he does not identify the mistake. Id. at 2. He 27 asks the Court to consider his incarceration. Id. at 2–3. Plaintiff does not state how 28 this prevented him from completing and submitting documents needed to proceed 1|| in forma pauperis in a timely fashion as previously directed by the Court. A motion for reconsideration of a judgment may be reviewed under either 3|| Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) (motion to alter or amend a judgment) or Rule 60(b) (relief from judgment). Sch. Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). “Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” /d. at 1263; United Nat. Ins. Co. v. Spectrum Worldwide, Inc., 9)|555 F.3d 772, 780 (9th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). Whether to grant a motion for reconsideration is within the sound discretion of the court. Navajo Nation v. 11|| Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakima Nation, 331 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th Cir. 2003). For the reasons articulated in the Order Dismissing Action, ECF No. Plaintiff's motion is DENIED. 14 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 15 1. Plaintiff's Rule 59 Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment, ECF No. 16| 13, is DENIED. 17 2. The file shall remain CLOSED. 18 3. The Court certifies that any appeal of this decision would not be taken in good faith. 20 IT ISSO ORDERED. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter this Order 21||and provide a copy to Plaintiff. 22 DATED this 12th day of November 2025.

: Soba 26 Chief United States District Judge 27 28

ADTATD TRADAIWTTAIA DITO CARTIATIART On

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Kirk L. Williams v. United States Air Force Base in Fairfax and Film Forming Foams Prolab, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kirk-l-williams-v-united-states-air-force-base-in-fairfax-and-film-waed-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack