Smith v. Castelo

FILED IN THE 2 U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 3 Aug 18, 2023 4 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON THOMAS-EDWARD-ELMER SMITH, 10 Plaintiff, No. 2:22-CV-00325-SAB 11 v. SUZI CASTELO, private and professional ORDER DENYING capacity; LINDA MILLER SHEETS, CONSTRUED MOTION FOR private and professional capacity; STEVE RECONSIDERATION RAMSEY, private and professional capacity; MICHAEL BAUMGARTNER, private and professional capacity; JOE HOLLENBACK, private and professional capacity; SPOKANE COUNTY; and STATE OF WASHINGTON, 21 Defendants.

23 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Verified Petition for Motion to Vacate Judgment Based on the Following Objections to the Denial of Motion of Reconsideration of Order Granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 67.

26 Plaintiff is pro se. Defendants are represented by Casey A. Evans and Dayle Andersen, Jr. The motion was heard without oral argument. The Court construes the motion as a motion for reconsideration.

1 Reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Kona Enterprises, Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). 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.

6 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 Cnty. Sch.

10 Dist., 727 F.3d 950, 955 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Sch. Dist. No. 1J, 5 F.3d at 1263).

11 “There may also be other, highly unusual, circumstances warranting reconsideration.” Sch. Dist. No. 1J, 5 F.3d at 1263. 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).

16 Plaintiff failed to meet the standard for reconsideration outlined in case law.

17 Again, Plaintiff did not meet any of the three grounds for reconsideration outlined in Smith. Therefore, this extraordinary remedy is not available, and the motion is denied. The case remains closed.

20 // // // // // // // // // 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. Plaintiff's [Construed] Motion for Reconsideration, ECF No. 67, is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Clerk is hereby directed to file 5|| this Order and provide copies to counsel and pro se Plaintiff.

DATED this 18th day of August 2023.

7 ‘ Sfuleyld Ecc toar 1D Stanley A. Bastian Chief United States District Judge ORDER DENYING CONSTRUED MOTION FOR