Smith v. Lewis

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON JOHN GARRETT SMITH, NO: 2:20-CV-143-TOR 8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING CONSTRUED 9 v. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION LEWIS, et al., 11 Defendants.

13 BEFORE THE COURT is Plaintiff’s document titled, “Plea for Emergency Injunction Against Judicial Corruption Plus Motion for Extension of Filing Fee Deadline Due to State Interference,” ECF No. 8, which the Court liberally construes as a Motion for Reconsideration of the Order Dismissing Action for non-payment of the filing fee issued on May 14, 2020, ECF No. 6. Plaintiff, a prisoner at the Stafford Creek Corrections Center in Aberdeen, Washington, is proceeding pro se; Defendants have not been served. The Motion was considered without oral argument on the date signed below.

1 A motion for reconsideration of a judgment may be reviewed under either Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) (motion to alter or amend a judgment) or Rule 60(b) (relief from judgment). Sch. Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). “Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (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.” Id. at 1263; United Nat. Ins. Co. v. Spectrum Worldwide, Inc., 555 F.3d 772, 780 (9th Cir. 2009). Whether to grant a motion for 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). Here, no grounds for reconsideration exist.

11 Plaintiff claims that he is a “an award-winning, High-Functioning Autistic Natural Scientist,” whose liberty and property were “stolen” in connection with his state criminal proceedings in 2013 in which an allegedly fabricated voice mail was used to convict him. ECF No. 8 at 6. Plaintiff accuses a judicial officer of acting “illegally and foolishly with total disregard for integrity to justice,” concerning habeas corpus proceedings filed in the Western District of Washington. Id. at 4. He further accuses this judicial officer of being “a domestic terrorist, who uses the law as a weapon to advance ANTI-Constitutional abuses.” Id. at 5. Even if Plaintiff had paid the filing fee in this action, this is not the forum in which to challenge the actions || of judicial officers in other parts of Washington State. No further reconsideration of Plaintiff’s arguments is warranted.

3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 4 1. Plaintiffs construed Motion for Reconsideration, ECF No. 8, is DENIED.

5 2. The file remains CLOSED.

6 The Clerk’s Office is directed to enter this Order and provide a copy to Plaintiff. The Court certifies that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith.

9 DATED June 9, 2020.

10 DR; 11 A> i i HOMAS Zh Gre Chief United States District Judge