Klineburger v. Constantine

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 9 10 STEPHEN EUGENE KLINEBURGER, CASE NO. 2:23-cv-00958-LK 11 Plaintiff, ORDER REGARDING 12 v. PLAINTIFF’S FILING 13 DOW CONSTANTINE et al., 14 Defendants. 15

16 This matter comes before the Court on pro se Plaintiff Stephen Eugene Klineburger’s 17 “Show Cause for Improper Service.” Dkt. No. 11 at 1. 18 On October 19, 2023, the Court dismissed this case without prejudice for failure to comply 19 with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 and entered judgment. Dkt. Nos. 7, 8. On November 2, 20 2023, the Court struck summonses erroneously issued by the Clerk’s office. Dkt. Nos. 9, 10. On 21 November 8, 2023, the Court received an additional filing by Mr. Klineburger asking “the Court 22 to recognize the patience that is necessary to be afforded to ‘Non-BAR Attorney’ litigant.” Dkt. 23 No. 11 at 2; see id. at 2–3 (citing various cases). 24 1 To the extent Mr. Klineburger’s filing can be construed as a motion for reconsideration 2 under Local Civil Rule 7(h), or alternatively, a motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 3 59(e) or 60(b), the Court denies the motion. 4 Motions for reconsideration are disfavored under the local rules, and the Court “will

5 ordinarily deny such motions in the absence of a showing of manifest error in the prior ruling or a 6 showing of new facts or legal authority which could not have been brought to its attention earlier 7 with reasonable diligence.” LCR 7(h)(1); see also Kona Enters., Inc. v. Est. of Bishop, 229 F.3d 8 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000) (noting that reconsideration is an “extraordinary remedy, to be used 9 sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources” (cleaned up)); Santiago 10 v. Gage, No. 3:18-CV-05825-RBL, 2020 WL 42246, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 3, 2020) (“Mere 11 disagreement with a previous order is an insufficient basis for reconsideration[.]”). Furthermore, 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). Here, Mr. Klineburger’s motion for reconsideration is untimely, LCR 7(h)(2), and does 16 not provide any new law or facts that might justify reconsideration of the Court’s prior order. 17 Rather, his argument appears directed at how the Court should have construed the merits of his 18 claims—a topic the undersigned has not had occasion to consider in light of Mr. Klineburger’s 19 failure to comply with Rule 4. See generally Dkt. No. 7. 20 Reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) or 60(b) “is appropriate if the 21 district court (1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the 22 initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” 23 Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262–63 (9th Cir. 1993).

24 For the reasons discussed above, Mr. Klineburger also fails to meet this standard. Pro se litigants 1 are subject to the same procedural requirements as other litigants. Muñoz v. United States, 28 F.4th 2 973, 978 (9th Cir. 2022). This entails strict compliance with applicable law, including but not 3 limited to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Civil Rules. See Chan v. Ryan, No. 22- 4 CV-01796-LK, 2023 WL 197429, at *4 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 17, 2023). Failure to do so can result in

5 dismissal. See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53–54 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (failure of pro se 6 litigant to follow procedural rules justified dismissal of civil rights action); see also Clancy v. 7 Allstate Ins. Co., No. 20-CV-08668-BLF, 2021 WL 3861421, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 30, 2021). 8 Thus, to the extent Mr. Klineburger’s filing can be liberally construed as a motion for 9 reconsideration of the Court’s October 19, 2023 Order and Judgment, or a motion pursuant to 10 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) or 60(b), the Court denies it. 11 12 Dated this 15th day of November, 2023. 13 A 14 Lauren King United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23