Brown v. Morgan

2 U.S. F D IL IS E T D R I I N C T T H C E O URT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 3 Jun 09, 2025 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON GREGORY TYREE BROWN, 8 NO: 4:24-CV-05146-RLP Plaintiff, 9 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO v. ALTER OR AMEND JUDGEMENT RICHARD MORGAN, et al., Defendants.

13 Before the Court is Plaintiff Gregory Tyree Brown’s Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). ECF No. 19. Mr. Brown, an individual incarcerated at the Washington State Penitentiary, paid the $405.00 filing fee for this action. Defendants were not served.

17 RULE 59(e) 18 Under Rule 59(e), a motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law. Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 2 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). Whether to grant a motion for reconsideration is within the sound discretion of the Court. Navajo Nation v. Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Indian Nation, 331 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th Cir. 2003).

5 Mr. Brown supports his Motion with an Affidavit and a Memorandum detailing how prisoners may access “the court’s e-filing system.” See ECF Nos. 19-1 and 19-2. The “e-filing system,” however, was not the reason this action was dismiss.

9 Indeed, this Court carefully reviewed the First Amended Complaint received via the U.S. Postal Service on April 11, 2025, ECF No. 17, and found that it failed to cure the deficiencies of the initial complaint and did not state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See ECF No. 18 at 2–3. Because the Court considered and evaluated Plaintiff’s submission, his assertions regarding the unavailability of e- filing on April 9, 2025, have no relevance to the disposition of this case.

15 Plaintiff has failed to point to any newly discovered evidence or intervening change in controlling law. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or., 5 F.3d at 1263. His Motion offers no valid basis for this Court to find either the April 10, 2025, Order Dismissing Action, ECF No. 15, or theApril 23, 2025, Order Directing That File Remain Closed, ECF No. 18, was clearly erroneous or manifestly unjust.

20 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1 1. Plaintiff's Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), ECF No. 19, is DENIED.

3 2. The Court certifies an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith.

5 IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk’s Office is directed to enter this Order and 6|| provide a copy to Plaintiff. The file shall remain closed.

7 DATED June 9, 2025. . LLC _ ss REBECCA L. PENNELL 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE