Ligeri v. Parker

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT AT SEATTLE BENJAMIN JOSEPH LIGERI, CASE NO. C25-0829-KKE

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

NATALIA PARKER, et al.,

Defendant(s).

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

A Kymberly K. Evanson United States District Judge