Wilton v. Fithian

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: March 10, 2023
• Docket: 3:21-cv-05596
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 9 10 REGINALD WAYNE WILTON, CASE NO. C21-5596 MJP 11 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS 12 v. 13 TOMAS FITHIAN, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. No. 17 99) and Motion Requesting Adoption by Reference (Dkt. No. 101). Having reviewed the 18 Motions, Defendants’ Response to the Motion Requesting Adoption by Reference (Dkt. No. 19 102), Plaintiff’s Reply (Dkt. No. 103), and all supporting materials, the Court DENIES both 20 Motions. 21 22 23 24 1 ANALYSIS 2 A. Motion for Reconsideration 3 Under the Local Civil Rules, “[m]otions for reconsideration are disfavored.” Local Civil 4 Rule 7(h)(1). “The court will ordinarily deny such motions in the absence of a showing of

5 manifest error in the prior ruling or a showing of new facts or legal authority which could not 6 have been brought to its attention earlier with reasonable diligence.” Id. 7 As an initial matter, the Court notes that it has only considered the first twelve pages of 8 Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration. As the Court made clear to Plaintiff, motions for 9 reconsideration are normally limited to six pages under the Local Civil Rules. (See Order on 10 Motion for Extension of Time and Motion For Leave to File Over-Length Brief at 2 (Dkt. No. 11 98).) The Court granted Plaintiff twice that page limit, and warned Plaintiff that “the Court will 12 not consider any briefing that exceeds this page limit.” (Id.) Disregarding the Order, Plaintiff 13 filed a Motion for Reconsideration that is twenty-seven pages long. Consistent with the Court’s 14 prior Order, the Court has not and will not consider any arguments presented after the twelfth

15 page of Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration. 16 Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the Court’s Order adopting the Report and 17 Recommendation (Dkt. No. 89). Within the first twelve pages, Plaintiff makes two arguments: 18 (1) the Court failed to assess his access to court claim under the Fourteenth Amendment; and (2) 19 the Court erred in concluding that his second underlying lawsuit would have been barred by res 20 judicata. Neither argument has merit. 21 First, Plaintiff argues that the Court failed to consider his access to courts claim he 22 brought under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court did consider that claim and found it lacked 23 merit. (See Order Adopting the Report and Recommendation at 6-7.) Plaintiff has failed to show

24 1 any manifest error in that decision and he has not identified any new authority or facts that he 2 could not have identified earlier. 3 Second, Plaintiff argues that the Court incorrectly concluded that res judicata would have 4 barred his second lawsuit because he views the grant of summary judgment against him as a

5 dismissal without prejudice. Plaintiff misapprehends the law. A grant of summary judgment that 6 fully disposes of an action is a final, appealable order, as the authority Plaintiff cites makes clear. 7 See Williamson v. UNUM Life Ins. Co. of Am., 160 F.3d 1247, 1250 (9th Cir. 1998) (but noting 8 that absent special circumstances “partial summary judgment orders do not dispose of all claims 9 and do not end the litigation on the merits” and are therefore not final, appealable orders). Here, 10 the evidence submitted to the Court shows that summary judgment was granted in the 11 defendants’ favor on all of Plaintiff’s claims, which constitutes a final decision on the merits. 12 (Ex. A to Mot. for Reconsideration (Dkt. No. 99 at 30-31).) This was not a dismissal without 13 prejudice. Plaintiff has failed to show any manifest error in this aspect of the Court’s decision 14 and he has not identified any new authority or facts that he could not have identified earlier.

15 The Court therefore DENIES the Motion for Reconsideration. 16 B. Motion Requesting Adoption by Reference 17 Through his Motion Requesting Adoption by Reference, Plaintiff has submitted four 18 additional pages of argument asking the Court to consider his notice of supplemental authority 19 and additional exhibits. (Dkt. No. 101.) To the extent that Plaintiffs’ Motion Requesting 20 Adoption by Reference contains argument that Plaintiff wishes the Court to consider in deciding 21 his Motion for Reconsideration, the Court DENIES it because he has already exceeded the 22 twelve pages allowed for his Motion for Reconsideration. Additionally, the supplemental 23 authority Plaintiff cites to was decided in 1995. See In re Dependency of Grove, 127 Wn.2d 221

24 1 (1995). This is not properly considered supplemental authority under the Local Civil Rules 2 because it was not “issued after the date the party’s last brief was filed.” See Local Civil Rule 3 7(n). Plaintiff could have cited to the case in earlier briefing and there is no proper basis to 4 consider it. The Court therefore DENIES the Motion Requesting Adoption by Reference in full,

5 including as to the purported supplemental authority. 6 CONCLUSION 7 Plaintiff has failed to identify any manifest error in the Court’s Order Adopting the 8 Report and Recommendation or any other basis on which to grant reconsideration. The Court 9 DENIES the Motion for Reconsideration and the Motion Requesting Adoption by Reference. 10 The are no further issues pending before this Court and Plaintiff shall proceed with his appeal. 11 The clerk is ordered to provide copies of this order to Plaintiff and all counsel. 12 Dated March 10, 2023. A 13 14 Marsha J. Pechman United States Senior District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24