Gomes v. Memorial Hospital

1 FILED IN THE EASTERU N. S D. I SD TI RS IT CR TI C OT F C WO AU SR HT I NGTON 2 Aug 11, 2020 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON ROBERT LARAMIE GOMES, No. 1:19-cv-3094-SMJ Plaintiff, 6 ORDER DENYING CONSTRUED v. MOTION FOR 7 RECONSIDERATION MEMORIAL HOSPTIAL, Defendant.

10 Before the Court, without oral argument, is Plaintiff Robert Laramie Gomes’s construed Motion for Reconsideration, ECF No. 30. Plaintiff asks the Court to reconsider its Order Dismissing Action, issued on June 11, 2020, ECF No. 27.

13 Plaintiff subsequently notified the Court of his release from incarceration. ECF No. 31. Having reviewed the filings and the record in this matter, the Court is fully informed and denies the construed Motion for Reconsideration.

16 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 17 A motion for reconsideration may be reviewed under either Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) (motion to alter or amend a judgment) or 60(b) (relief from judgment). Sch. Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). “A district court may properly reconsider its decision if it ‘(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.’” Smith v. Clark Cty. Sch. Dist., 727 F.3d 950, 955 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Sch. Dist. No. 1J, 5 F.3d 4 at 1263). “There may also be other, highly unusual, circumstances warranting reconsideration.” Sch. Dist. No. 1J, 5 F.3d at 1263.

6 Petitioner states he will amend his Complaint again to specify a dollar amount in the relief section and that he was unable to “just go to the Hospital to retrieve policy or custom of Memorial Hospital” due to his incarceration. ECF No. 30 at 1.

9 These assertions are insufficient to overcome the Court’s prior determination that further amendment would be futile. See ECF No. 27 at 4.

11 Petitioner has not presented newly discovered evidence, demonstrated that the Court committed clear error, or shown that the Order dismissing this action because the First Amended Complaint failed to state plausible claims for relief was manifestly unjust. There has also been no intervening change in controlling law and there are no other circumstances warranting reconsideration. Id. // // // // // l Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 2 Plaintiff's construed Motion for Reconsideration, ECF No. 30, is 3 DENIED.

4 IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk’s Office is directed to enter this Order and provide a copy to pro se Plaintiff at his last known address. The file shall remain CLOSED.

7 DATED this 11" day of August 2020.

9 soe CALVADOR MENESGHiA, JR. 10 United States District Judge ORDER DENYING CONSTRUED MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION -— 3