Rothschild El v. National Security Agency

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 9 AT SEATTLE 10 11 AMSCHEL ROTHSCHILD EL, Moorish CASE NO. 2:25-cv-01698-TL American National, Sui Juris, formerly 12 known as Kondwani Saeed Davis, ORDER ON MOTION FOR 13 Plaintiff, RECONSIDERATION v. 14 NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY and its 15 officers, agents, and assigns, 16 Defendants. 17

18 This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s “Amended Petition in Equity and Motion to 19 Vacate Dismissal” (Dkt. No. 15), which the Court construes as a motion for reconsideration of its 20 September 12, 2025, order of dismissal (Dkt. No. 14). 21 I. BACKGROUND 22 On September 8, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiff’s petition to proceed in this case in 23 forma pauperis (Dkt. No. 3) and docketed Plaintiff’s complaint (Dkt. No. 4). On September 12, 24 2025, the Court reviewed Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1 determined that “the bulk of Plaintiff’s [complaint and subsequent filings] comprise[s] legal 2 maxims and case citations, but nothing specific regarding Plaintiff’s cause(s) of action.” Dkt. 3 No. 14 at 4. The Court concluded that Plaintiff had failed to state a claim upon which relief could 4 be granted, dismissed the complaint without prejudice, and provided Plaintiff with a deadline of

5 October 14, 2025, to file an amended complaint. See id. at 4–5. 6 On September 29, 2025, Plaintiff filed the instant motion. Dkt. No. 15. 7 II. LEGAL STANDARD 8 “Motions for reconsideration are disfavored.” LCR 7(h)(1). Such motions are ordinarily 9 denied absent “a showing of manifest error in the prior ruling or a showing of new facts or legal 10 authority which could not have been brought to [the court’s] attention earlier with reasonable 11 diligence.” Id. Absent such a showing, motions for reconsideration should be granted only in 12 “highly unusual circumstances.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 13 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting 389 Orange St. Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 14 665 (9th Cir. 1999)); see also Inventist, Inc. v. Ninebot Inc., 664 F. Supp. 3d 1211, 1215 (W.D.

15 Wash. 2023) (noting that reconsideration is an “extraordinary remedy” and that the moving party 16 bears a “heavy burden” (quoting Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th 17 Cir. 2000))). “A motion for reconsideration ‘may not be used to raise arguments or present 18 evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been raised earlier in the litigation.’” 19 Marlyn Nutraceuticals, 571 F.3d at 880 (quoting Kona Enters., 229 F.3d at 890). “Whether or 20 not to grant reconsideration is committed to the sound discretion of the court.” Navajo Nation v. 21 Confederated Tribes & Bands of the Yakama Indian Nation, 331 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th Cir. 2003) 22 (citing Kona Enters., 229 F.3d at 883). 23

24 1 TI. DISCUSSION 2 Plaintiff asserts that the Court erred when it “dismissed this cause by treating it as a 3 || statutory FOIA claim. This was and remains a Petition in Exclusive Equity, not under statutes.” 4 || Dkt. No. 15 at 2. Plaintiff continues, “Thus, the dismissal is void as it failed to address the 5 || Petition on its equitable merits and ignored Petitioner’s established status.” Jd. 6 Plaintiff mischaracterizes the Court’s order. The Court dismissed Plaintiff's complaint 7 || because it was “unable to locate a short and plain statement of Plaintiffs claim.” Dkt. No. 14 at 8 In short, “the Court c[ould] not discern a proper cause of action.” /d. at 4. Plaintiffs short 9 || motion here, which does little more than assert in a conclusory manner that the Court erred, does 10 || not demonstrate that the Court manifestly erred when it deemed the complaint deficient under 11 || Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. Further, all of the documentary evidence attached to the 12 || instant motion (Dkt. No. 15-1) pre-dates Plaintiff's complaint, indicating that it does not 13 || represent new facts or new legal authority that Plaintiff could not have brought to the Court’s 14 || attention before. Therefore, Plaintiff has not carried the “heavy burden” attendant to a motion for 15 || reconsideration. 16 IV. CONCLUSION 17 Therefore, Plaintiff's motion to vacate dismissal (Dkt. No. 15) is DENIED. The deadline 18 || set in the Court’s prior Order of Dismissal (Dkt. No. 14) remains in place. If Plaintiff does not 19 || file an amended complaint by October 14, 2025, the case will be DISMISSED WITHOUT 20 || PREJUDICE. 21 Dated this 30th day of September 2025. 22 ALA Be 23 Tana Lin United States District Judge