Brown v. Murphy

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE MAURICE ANTHONY BROWN, CASE NO. C23-0835-JCC Plaintiff, ORDER v. MATTHEW MURPHY, et al., Defendants.

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Dkt. No. 12) of this Court’s order dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice. (Dkt. No. 10.)

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.

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

1 In the instant case, Plaintiff fails to 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. 5 at 7–8, with Dkt. Nos. 12 at 7–10.)1 5 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Dkt. No. 12) is DENIED.

7 DATED this 5th day of October 2023.

8 A 11 John C. Coughenour UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE The Court previously ordered Plaintiff to file an amended complaint to cure deficiencies identified in his complaint. (See Dkt. No. 9.) When Plaintiff failed to do so in a timely manner, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice. (See Dkt. No. 10.) The Court notes that the untimely amended complaint, attached to Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Dkt. No. at 2–16), does not cure the previously identified deficiencies.