O'Hagan v. State of Washington

Opinion

1 HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON 2 3 4 5

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 7 AT TACOMA 8 JAMES H. O’HAGAN, CASE NO. C19-6205-RBL 9 Plaintiff, ORDER ON MOTION FOR 10 v. RECONSIDERATION

11 STATE OF WASHINGTON, DKT. # 4 12 Defendant. 13

14 THIS MATTER is before the Court on Petitioner/Plaintiff O’Hagan’s Motion for 15 Reconsideration of the Court’s prior Order Denying O’Hagan’s Motion to Proceed In Forma 16 Pauperis. Dkt. # 3. 17 Under Local Rule 7(h)(1), motions for reconsideration are disfavored, and will ordinarily 18 be denied unless there is a showing of (a) manifest error in the ruling, or (b) facts or legal 19 authority which could not have been brought to the attention of the court earlier, through 20 reasonable diligence. The term “manifest error” is “an error that is plain and indisputable, and 21 that amounts to a complete disregard of the controlling law or the credible evidence in the 22 record.” Black's Law Dictionary 622 (9th ed. 2009). 23 24 1 Reconsideration is an “extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of 2 finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 3 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). “[A] motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly 4 unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, 5 committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.” Marlyn

6 Natraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009). Neither 7 the Local Civil Rules nor the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, which allow for a motion for 8 reconsideration, is intended to provide litigants with a second bite at the apple. A motion for 9 reconsideration should not be used to ask a court to rethink what the court had already thought 10 through — rightly or wrongly. Defenders of Wildlife v. Browner, 909 F.Supp. 1342, 1351 (D. 11 Ariz. 1995). Mere disagreement with a previous order is an insufficient basis for reconsideration, 12 and reconsideration may not be based on evidence and legal arguments that could have been 13 presented at the time of the challenged decision. Haw. Stevedores, Inc. v. HT & T Co., 363 F. 14 Supp. 2d 1253, 1269 (D. Haw. 2005). “Whether or not to grant reconsideration is committed to

15 the sound discretion of the court.” Navajo Nation v. Confederated Tribes & Bands of the Yakima 16 Indian Nation, 331 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th Cir. 2003). 17 Here, O’Hagan’s Motion falls far below this high standard. O’Hagan asserts various 18 arguments about how the Court misapprehends the nature of his lawsuit, which he claims is 19 actually a criminal action. O’Hagan’s arguments are meritless. As the Court previously 20 explained, O’Hagan has neither demonstrated that he is unable to pay the filing fee nor has he 21 // 22 // 23 24 1 filed a plausible complaint. For all the reasons already stated in the Court’s prior Order, 2 O’Hagan’s Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. 4 5 Dated this 21st day of January, 2020.

6 A 7 Ronald B. Leighton 8 United States District Judge

9 10

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