Hawkins v. United States

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 10 SABELITA HAWKINS, CASE NO. C16-0498JLR 11 Plaintiff, ORDER v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants.

I. INTRODUCTION Before the court is Plaintiff Sabelita Hawkins’s “motion to hold case in abeyance” until January 24, 2025. (Mot. (Dkt. # 107).) The court construes Ms. Hawkins’s motion as seeking reconsideration of the court’s January 2, 2025 order denying her request to hold the case in abeyance as of December 15, 2024. (See 1/2/25 Order (Dkt. # 106)); see Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 7(h) (governing motions for reconsideration), 7(d)(1) (providing that a motion for reconsideration shall be noted for the day the motion is filed). The court has considered the motion, the relevant portions of the record, and the applicable law. Being fully advised, the court DENIES Ms. Hawkins’s motion.

3 II. BACKGROUND1 4 On December 31, 2024, Tuella Sykes, counsel for Ms. Hawkins, informed the court, in an ex parte phone call, that she fell and sustained a head injury on December 15, 2024. Chambers staff informed Ms. Sykes that she must file a motion if she sought relief from the court related to her injury. Later that same day, instead of filing a motion, Ms. Sykes emailed the court, stating that she was “unable to complete [her] motion due to [her] current head injury.” (1/2/25 Order at 1-2; see id., Ex. 1.) She also stated that she had been experiencing symptoms related to her head injury since December 15, 2024.

11 (Id., Ex. 1.) Ms. Sykes did not seek treatment for her injury until December 31, 2024, when she participated in a video appointment with a physician at the University of Washington Medical Center. (See id., Ex. 2 (sealed).) After that appointment, the physician provided Ms. Sykes a letter excusing her from work between December 31, 2024 and January 14, 2025. (Id.) Ms. Sykes is scheduled for a follow up appointment on January 13, 2025. (Id.) 17 In her December 31 email to the court, Ms. Sykes asked the court to “hold [all] deadlines in abeyance” as of December 15, 2024, until an unspecified date in the future.

19 (See id., Ex. 1.) The court denied her request on January 2, 2025. (See 1/2/25 Order.)

1 The court detailed the relevant background of this matter in its January 2, 2025 order and does not repeat that background here, except as necessary to the court’s analysis. (See 1/2/25 Order.)

1 That same day, after the court entered its order, Ms. Sykes, on behalf of Ms. Hawkins, filed the present motion. She now asks the court to hold the deadlines in this case in abeyance, “for at least three weeks”—until January 24, 2025—due to her “present circumstances.” (Mot. at 3.)

5 III. ANALYSIS 6 A motion for reconsideration is an “extraordinary remedy . . . to be used sparingly” and the movant bears a “heavy burden.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). “The court will ordinarily deny such motions in the absence of a showing of manifest error in the prior ruling or a showing of new facts or legal authority which could not have been brought to its attention earlier with reasonable diligence.” Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 7(h)(1).

12 Ms. Sykes asserts that an abeyance is warranted “[c]onsidering the sensitivity of the facts of Ms. Hawkins[’s] case & [Ms. Sykes’s] knowledge of the judicial history.”

14 (Id. at 3.) She also contends that “considerable judicial resources can be saved by” holding the proceedings in abeyance “starting with the pre-trial order deadline.” (Id.) 16 This case has been pending for nearly nine years and the February 10, 2025 trial date is fast approaching. (See 2/7/24 Min. Order (Dkt. # 70).) As the court noted in its January 2, 2025 order, several key deadlines that expire before the agreed pretrial order deadline will be affected by Ms. Sykes’s abeyance request, including Ms. Hawkins’s January 14, 2025 deadline to respond to Defendants’ motions in limine. (See 1/2/25 Order at 3.) It is unclear whether Ms. Sykes seeks an extension of deadlines expiring before January 24, 2025 or relief from deadlines following the January 21, 2025 pretrial order deadline. (Compare Mot. at 3 (seeking an abeyance “starting with the pre-trial order deadline”); with id. at n.1-2 (seeking an abeyance of unspecified “deadlines from pre-trial Order”).) Ms. Hawkins does not say whether she served her pretrial statement on Defendants by the December 20, 2024 deadline set forth in the Local Civil Rules. (See 1/2/25 Order at 3 (citing Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 16(h)).) She also does not indicate whether she will be prepared to attend the January 27, 2025 pretrial conference or to file proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law that same day. (2/7/24 Min.

8 Order; see also 12/30/24 Min. Order (Dkt. # 103 (resetting the deadline for filing proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to January 27, 2025).) These deadlines are only three days after her requested abeyance period would expire.

11 Ms. Sykes has neither shown “manifest error” in the court’s January 2, 2025 order nor provided any new facts to justify reconsideration of that order. As the court observed, Ms. Sykes has frequently requested last-minute extensions when a deadline was approaching. (See 1/2/25 Order at 3-4 (discussing Ms. Sykes’s recent requests for extensions).) In light of Ms. Sykes’s repeated requests for extensions of her deadlines, the court is concerned about her ability to adequately represent Ms. Hawkins without assistance. Counsel should ensure that Ms. Hawkins is adequately and competently represented and continue to prepare for the trial and pretrial deadlines previously set by the court. (See 2/7/24 Order; 12/19/24 Min. Order; 12/30/24 Min. Order (Dkt. # 103).)

1 IV. CONCLUSION 2 For the foregoing reasons, the court DENIES Ms. Hawkins’s motion for reconsideration of the court’s January 2, 2025 order (Dkt. # 107).

4 Dated this 3rd day of January, 2025.

A JAMES L. ROBART 6 United States District Judge