Stanard v. Nolan

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 10 ROBERT ALLEN STANARD, CASE NO. C19-0017JLR 11 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S v. MOTION FOR 12 RECONSIDERATION SPECIAL INVESTIGATIVE AGENT NOLAN, et al., Defendant.

16 Before the court is Plaintiff Robert Allen Stanard’s motion for reconsideration (MFR (Dkt. # 35)) of the court’s order (1/14/20 Order (Dkt. # 33)) adopting Magistrate Judge Theiler’s report and recommendation (R&R (Dkt. # 28)) and granting Defendants Sean Nolan, Dan Sproul, Ian Connors, and Mary Mitchell’s (collectively, “Defendants”) motion to dismiss (MTD (Dkt. # 15)). For the reasons stated below, the motion is DENIED.

22 // 1 Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7(h)(1), motions for reconsideration are disfavored, and the court ordinarily will deny such motions unless the moving party shows (a) manifest error in the prior ruling, or (b) new facts or legal authority which could not have been brought to the court’s attention earlier with reasonable diligence. Local Rules W.D.

5 Wash. LCR 7(h)(1).

6 Mr. Nolan presents no new facts or legal authority that could not have been brought to the court’s attention earlier with reasonable diligence. (See generally Mot.)

8 Instead, Mr. Nolan asserts that the court failed under the Bivens analysis to properly determine whether or not his alternative remedy was adequate or determine what special factors lead to the court’s conclusion that Congress, not the courts, have the authority to authorize a suit for money damages. (See MFR at 1-3; Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).) These issues were fully analyzed and discussed in both the report and recommendation and this court’s order adopting the report and recommendation. (See R&R at 7 (determining that the plaintiff had the adequate alternative remedy—and in fact utilized this remedy—available to him under the Bureau of Prisons’ administrative remedy program); id. (analyzing Congress’s involvement in the area of prisoner civil rights as a factor that weighs against extending Bivens); 1/14/2020 Order (adopting the report and recommendation’s Bivens analysis in full).)

19 Because Mr. Nolan has not made a showing of manifest error in the court’s prior ruling or brought to the court’s attention any new facts or legal authority that could not // // have been brought to the court’s attention earlier with reasonable diligence, the court DENIES Mr. Nolan’s motion for reconsideration (Dkt. # 35).

3 Dated this 21st day of February, 2020.

A 6 JAMES L. ROBART United States District Judge