Zayas v. Summit Classical Christian School

Opinion

1 2

3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE

9 10 MYRIAM ZAYAS, CASE NO. C23-1368JLR 11 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 12 SUMMIT CLASSICAL 13 CHRISTIAN SCHOOL, 14 Defendant. 15 Before the court is pro se Plaintiff Myriam Zayas’s “reply” to the court’s May 6, 16 2024 order, in which the court denied Ms. Zayas’s motion for a refund of her district and 17 appellate court filing fees. (Reply (Dkt. # 16); see also 5/6/24 Order (Dkt. # 15); 4/22/24 18 Mot. (Dkt. # 14).) Specifically, the court concluded Ms. Zayas did not actually pay the 19 district court filing fee because she proceeded in forma pauperis, and that she was not 20 entitled to a refund of the appellate court filing fee based on a mere “change of heart.” 21 (5/6/24 Order at 1-2.) 22 1 The court construes the instant filing as a motion for reconsideration, and denies 2 the same. Motions for reconsideration must “be filed within fourteen days after the order

3 to which it relates is filed.” Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 7(h)(2). In general, 4 “[m]otions for reconsideration are disfavored,” and the court “will ordinarily deny such 5 motions in the absence of a showing of manifest error in the prior ruling or a showing of 6 new facts or legal authority which could not have been brought to its attention earlier 7 with reasonable diligence.” Id. LCR 7(h)(1). “Reconsideration is an extraordinary 8 remedy,” and the moving party bears a “heavy burden.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Est. of

9 Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). 10 Ms. Zayas filed her July 5, 2024 motion well beyond the time limits imposed by 11 this District’s Local Rules. Moreover, the motion lacks merit. Ms. Zayas identifies 12 neither manifest error in the court’s prior order, nor facts or legal authority which could 13 not have been brought to the court’s attention earlier with reasonable diligence. (See

14 generally Reply.) The motion is therefore DENIED (Dkt. # 16). 15 Ms. Zayas is warned that if she continues to file meritless motions in this closed 16 case, the court will direct the Clerk to refuse any and all of her future filings in this 17 matter. 18 Dated this 9th day of July, 2024. A 19 JAMES L. ROBART 20 United States District Judge 21 22