Schier v. Anderton

• Court: District Court, E.D. Washington
• Decided: February 19, 2025
• Docket: 1:25-cv-03012
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 FILED IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT 4 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON Feb 19, 2025 5 6 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 9 10 KELSEY SCHIER, administrator of the No. 1:25-CV-03012-SAB 11 Estate of Guenter Werner Schier, 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION 13 v. FOR RECONSIDERATION 14 MATTHEW J. ANDERTON, in his official 15 and private capacities, 16 Defendant. 17 18 Before the Court are Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of Order 19 Denying TRO and Preliminary Injunction, ECF No. 13, and related Motion to 20 Expedite, ECF No. 14. Plaintiff is pro se. Defendant represents himself. The 21 motion was considered without oral argument. 22 Plaintiff requests the Court reconsider its February 18, 2025, Order denying 23 his request for a temporary restraining order and abstaining from the matter based 24 on 28 U.S.C. § 1334. See ECF No. 11. 25 “Reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the 26 interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Kona Enterprises, Inc. 27 v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). A court may review a 28 motion for reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), for altering or amending a 1 judgment, or 60(b), for relief from a judgment. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, 2 Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). “A district court may properly reconsider 3 its decision if it ‘(1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed 4 clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an 5 intervening change in controlling law.’ ” Smith v. Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist., 727 F.3d 6 950, 955 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Sch. Dist. No. 1J, 5 F.3d at 1263). “There may 7 also be other, highly unusual, circumstances warranting reconsideration.” Sch. 8 Dist. No. 1J, 5 F.3d at 1263. Whether to grant a motion for reconsideration is 9 within the sound discretion of the court. See Navajo Nation v. Confederated Tribes 10 & Bands of the Yakama Nation, 331 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th Cir. 2003). 11 Here, Plaintiff has not met the standard for reconsideration. There is no 12 newly discovered evidence, and no change in law has occurred. See Smith, 727 13 F.3d at 955. Further, the facts of Plaintiff’s case and pending action in Bankruptcy 14 Court have not changed. The Court again declines to intercede and maintains its 15 abstention in this matter because its initial decision was neither in error nor 16 manifestly unjust. See id. 17 Plaintiff has failed to meet the burden of showing this extraordinary remedy 18 is appropriate in this matter, and therefore the Court denies the motion. 19 // 20 // 21 // 22 // 23 // 24 // 25 // 26 // 27 // 28 // 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of Order Denying TRO and Preliminary Injunction, ECF No. 13, is DENIED. Plaintiff's related Motion to Expedite, ECF No. 14, is GRANTED. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter this Order, provide copies to pro se Plaintiff and Defendant as counsel, and keep the file closed. 8 DATED this 19th day of February 2025. 9 10 11 12 13 8 Shetle Fes thar Stanley A. Bastian 15 Chief United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28