Ligeri v. Parker

Opinion

1 2 3

4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 BENJAMIN JOSEPH LIGERI, CASE NO. C25-0829-KKE 8

Plaintiff(s), ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 9 v. RECONSIDERATION

10 NATALIA PARKER, et al.,

11 Defendant(s).

12 Plaintiff requests that the Court reconsider its order granting Defendants’ motion to 13 dismiss. Dkt. No. 39. Although Plaintiff disagrees with the Court’s conclusions, he has failed to 14 identify a manifest error or new facts or evidence that were not brought to the Court’s attention 15 earlier. See id. 16 “A motion for reconsideration should not be used to ask a court to rethink what the court 17 had already thought through—rightly or wrongly.” Nelson v. Thurston County, No. C18-5184 18 RBL, 2019 WL 1489134, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 3, 2019) (citing Defs. of Wildlife v. Browner, 19 909 F. Supp. 1342, 1351 (D. Ariz. 1995)). 20 Because Plaintiff’s motion fails to establish that reconsideration is warranted, the Court 21 DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration. See Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 7(h)(1) 22 (“Motions for reconsideration are disfavored. The court will ordinarily deny such motions in the 23 24 1 absence of a showing of manifest error in the prior ruling or a showing of new facts or legal 2 authority which could not have been brought to its attention earlier with reasonable diligence.”). 3 Dated this 2nd day of October, 2025.

4 A 5 Kymberly K. Evanson 6 United States District Judge

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24