Sullivan v. Federal Bureau of Prisons

CASE NUMBER: CIVIL NO. 20-00269 LEK-KJM CASE NAME: Leihinahina Sullivan vs. Federal Bureau of Prisons et al.,

JUDGE: Leslie E. Kobayashi DATE: 05/10/2021 COURT ACTION: EO: COURT ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION On December 21, 2020, Defendants Office of the United States Attorney for the District of Hawai`i and Federal Bureau of Prisons (“Defendants”) filed their Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint [ECF No. 25] (“Motion to Dismiss”). [Dkt. no. 28.] On April 19, 2021, the Motion to Dismiss was denied. [Order Denying Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint, Filed 12/21/20 [Dkt.

No. 28], filed 4/19/21 (dkt. no. 38) (“4/19/21 Order”).] On May 3, 2021, Defendants filed their motion for reconsideration of the 4/19/21 Order (“Motion for Reconsideration”). [Dkt. no. 39.] This mater is suitable for disposition without a hearing and without further briefing. See Local Rule LR7.1(d) (listing motions for reconsideration among the motions that “shall be decided without a hearing”); Local Rule LR60.1 (stating no memorandum in opposition to a motion for reconsideration and no reply in support of a motion for reconsideration “shall be filed unless directed by the court”).

“Motions for reconsideration of interlocutory orders may be brought only upon the following grounds: (a) Discovery of new material facts not previously available; (b) Intervening change in law; and/or (c) Manifest error of law or fact.” Local Rule LR60.1.

Defendants argue that the 4/19/21 Order constitutes manifest error of law. However, “‘[m]ere disagreement with a previous order is an insufficient basis for reconsideration.’” Riley v. Nat’l Ass’n of Marine Surveyors, Inc., Civil No. 14-00135 LEK-RLP, 2014 WL 4794003, at *1 (D. Hawai`i Sept. 25, 2014) (quoting Davis v. Abercrombie, Civil No. 11–00144 LEK–BMK, 2014 WL 2468348, at *3 n.4 (D. Hawai`i June 2, 2014)). Therefore, the Court finds that grounds for reconsideration have not been established.

For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.