Smith v. Castelo

Opinion

1 FILED IN THE 2 U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 3 Aug 18, 2023 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 13 capacity; LINDA MILLER SHEETS, CONSTRUED MOTION FOR 14 private and professional capacity; STEVE RECONSIDERATION 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 Verified Petition for Motion to Vacate 24 Judgment Based on the Following Objections to the Denial of Motion of 25 Reconsideration of Order Granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 67. 26 Plaintiff is pro se. Defendants are represented by Casey A. Evans and Dayle 27 Andersen, Jr. The motion was heard without oral argument. The Court construes 28 the motion as a motion for reconsideration. 1 Reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the 2 interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Kona Enterprises, Inc. 3 v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). A motion for 4 reconsideration may be reviewed under either Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5 59(e) (motion to alter or amend a judgment) or 60(b) (relief from judgment). Sch. 6 Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). “A district court 7 may properly reconsider its decision if it ‘(1) is presented with newly discovered 8 evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or 9 (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.’” Smith v. Clark Cnty. Sch. 10 Dist., 727 F.3d 950, 955 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Sch. Dist. No. 1J, 5 F.3d at 1263). 11 “There may also be other, highly unusual, circumstances warranting 12 reconsideration.” Sch. Dist. No. 1J, 5 F.3d at 1263. Whether to grant a motion for 13 reconsideration is within the sound discretion of the court. Navajo Nation v. 14 Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakima Nation, 331 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th 15 Cir. 2003). 16 Plaintiff failed to meet the standard for reconsideration outlined in case law. 17 Again, Plaintiff did not meet any of the three grounds for reconsideration outlined 18 in Smith. Therefore, this extraordinary remedy is not available, and the motion is 19 denied. The case remains closed. 20 // 21 // 22 // 23 // 24 // 25 // 26 // 27 // 28 // 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. Plaintiff's [Construed] Motion for Reconsideration, ECF No. 67, is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Clerk is hereby directed to file 5|| this Order and provide copies to counsel and pro se Plaintiff. DATED this 18th day of August 2023.

8 7 ‘ 10 Sfuleyld Ecc toar 1D Stanley A. Bastian

Chief United States District Judge

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDER DENYING CONSTRUED MOTION FOR