Smith v. Castelo

Opinion

1 FILED IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT 2 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON Jul 20, 2023 3 4 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 5 8 10 Plaintiff, No. 2:22-CV-00325-SAB 11 v. 12 SUZI CASTELO, private and professional ORDER DENYING MOTION 13 capacity; LINDA MILLER SHEETS, FOR RECONSIDERATION 14 private and professional capacity; STEVE 15 RAMSEY, private and professional 16 capacity; MICHAEL BAUMGARTNER, 17 private and professional capacity; JOE 18 HOLLENBACK, private and professional 19 capacity; SPOKANE COUNTY; and 21 Defendants. 22 23 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of Order Granting 24 Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Based on the Following Objections, ECF No. 61. 25 Plaintiff is pro se. Defendants are represented by Casey A. Evans and Dayle 26 Andersen, Jr. The motion was heard without oral argument. 27 Reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the 28 interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Kona Enterprises, Inc. l|| v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). A motion for reconsideration may be reviewed under either Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) (motion to alter or amend a judgment) or 60(b) (relief from judgment). Sch. Dist. No. 1J v. ACandsS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). “A district court 5|| may properly reconsider its decision if it ‘(1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.’” Smith v. Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist., 727 F.3d 950, 955 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Sch. Dist. No. 1J, 5 F.3d at 1263). 9)| “There may also be other, highly unusual, circumstances warranting reconsideration.” Sch. Dist. No. 1J, 5 F.3d at 1263. Whether to grant a motion for 11||reconsideration is within the sound discretion of the court. Navajo Nation v. Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakima Nation, 331 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th Cir. 2003). 14 Plaintiff did not meet the standard for reconsideration outlined in case law. 15|| Plaintiff did not meet any of the three grounds for reconsideration outlined in 16|| Smith. Therefore, this extraordinary remedy is not available, and the motion is 17|| denied. The case remains closed. 18 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 19 1. Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of Order Granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Based on the Following Objections, ECF No. 61, is DENIED. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Clerk is hereby directed to file 22\| this Order and provide copies to counsel and pro se Plaintiff. 23 DATED this 20th day of July 2023. 24 25 26 Sock yl Sect 28 Stanley A. Bastian Chief United States District Judge