Rogers v. Howard

Opinion

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON DARYL ROGERS, CASE NO. 3:21-CV-5311-RSL-DWC Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART AND v. DENYING-IN-PART HOWARD, et al., Defendants. Plaintiff Daryl Rogers, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 13, 2021, the Court screened Plaintiff’s Complaint. Dkt. 7. The Court declined to serve the Complaint due to deficiencies and directed Plaintiff to file an amended complaint on or before June 14, 2021. Id. On May 14, 2021, the Court denied Plaintiff’s request for Court-appointed counsel. Dkt. 8. On May 28, 2021, Plaintiff filed the pending Motion. Dkt. 9. Although not specifically characterized as such, the Court finds Plaintiff is requesting the Court reconsider its Order to File Amended Complaint and Order Denying Motion for Appointment of Counsel. See id. If the Court declines to reconsider its previous Orders, Plaintiff requests an extension of time to respond to the Order to File Amended Complaint. Id. Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7(h), motions for reconsideration are disfavored and will be denied absent a showing of manifest error or a showing of new facts or legal authority which could not have been presented earlier with reasonable diligence. Plaintiff has not met the standard outlined in Local Civil Rule 7(h). Plaintiff fails to show a manifest error in the Court’s

prior rulings. Plaintiff also fails to provide new facts or legal authority which relate to the deficiencies outlined in the Court’s Order to File Amended Complaint or relate to the appointment of counsel. Therefore, Plaintiff’s request for reconsideration of the Court’s previous Orders is denied. The Court, however, will grant Plaintiff an extension of time, until July 30, 2021, to respond to the Order to File Amended Complaint. Plaintiff must file an amended complaint and within the amended complaint, he must write a short, plain statement telling the Court: (1) the constitutional right Plaintiff believes was violated; (2) the name of the person who violated the right; (3) exactly what the individual did or failed to do; (4) how the action or inaction of the individual is connected to the violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights; and (5) what specific

injury Plaintiff suffered because of the individual’s conduct. See Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371–72, 377 (1976). Each claim for relief must be simple, concise, and direct. In conclusion, Plaintiff’s Motion (Dkt. 9) is granted-in-part and denied-in-part. The Court denies Plaintiff’s request to reconsider its previous rulings, but grants Plaintiff an extension of time to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff’s amended complaint is due on or before July 30, 2021. Dated this 10th day of June, 2021. A David W. Christel United States Magistrate Judge