Bell v. King County

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE WARREN E. BELL, CASE NO. C22-0387-JCC-TLF Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. KING COUNTY, et al., 13 Defendants.

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Dkt. No. 75) of this Court’s order adopting the Report and Recommendation of the Honorable Theresa L.

Fricke, United States Magistrate Judge, (“Order”) (Dkt. No. 73), recommending this Court GRANT Defendants’ summary judgement motion, (Dkt. No. 39), DENY Plaintiff’s summary judgement motion, (Dkt. No. 19), and DISMISS all Plaintiff’s claims with prejudice. Having thoroughly considered the relevant record, the Court hereby DENIES the reconsideration motion for the reasons explained herein.

Motions for reconsideration are generally disfavored. LCR 7(h)(1). Reconsideration is only appropriate where there is “manifest error in the prior ruling or a showing of new facts or legal authority which could not have been brought to [the Court’s] attention earlier with reasonable diligence.” Id. “A motion for reconsideration should not be used to ask the court to rethink what the court had already thought through—rightly or wrongly.” Ma v. Univ. of S.

2 California, 2019 WL 1239269, slip op. at 1 (W.D. Wash. 2019).

3 Plaintiff’s motion does not the cite appropriate standard of a motion to reconsider. See 4 LCR 7(h)(1). Instead, it asks the Court to strike an insufficient pleading pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. 5 P. 12(f), (Dkt. No. 75 at 4.), and argues that the pleadings were filed with an improper purpose, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, (Dkt. No. 75 at 5.) However, even if the Plaintiff did cite to the relevant standard, the motion does not demonstrate manifest error in the prior ruling or a showing of new facts or legal authority, as required by LCR 7(h)(1). Instead, Plaintiff merely reiterates arguments that were already considered and rejected by the Court. (Compare Dkt. No. 75 at 2–4, and Dkt. Nos. 70 at 3; 69 at 4–7.)

11 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Dkt. No. 75) is DENIED.

12 DATED this 12th day of June 2023.

A John C. Coughenour 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE