Marlin Pickens v. Virginia Mason Franciscan Health

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: October 24, 2024
• Docket: 23-35163
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 24 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARLIN GIOVANNI PICKENS, No. 23-35163

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:22-cv-05019-RSM

v. MEMORANDUM * VIRGINIA MASON FRANCISCAN HEALTH, AKA Saint Joseph Medical Center, Health Care Services - Emergency Department; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Ricardo S. Martinez, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 16, 2024**

Before: SILVERMAN, R. NELSON, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.

Marlin Giovanni Pickens appeals pro se from the district court’s order

denying his motion for reconsideration of its summary judgment in Pickens’s 42

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Pickens’s request for oral argument, set forth in the opening brief, is denied. U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various claims arising out of two emergency

department visits. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an

abuse of discretion. Guenther v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 972 F.3d 1043, 1058 (9th

Cir. 2020) (motion for reconsideration); Hinton v. Pac. Enters., 5 F.3d 391, 395

(9th Cir. 1993) (compliance with local rules). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Pickens’s motion

for reconsideration because Pickens failed to establish a basis for such relief. See

W.D. Wash. R. 7(h)(1) (explaining that motions for reconsideration are disfavored

and will be denied absent a showing of manifest error or new facts or legal

authority that could not have been brought to the court’s attention earlier with

reasonable diligence).

We do not consider facts or documents not presented to the district court.

See United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990).

AFFIRMED.

2 23-35163