Keith L. Closson v. Cheryl Strange

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE KEITH L. CLOSSON, CASE NO. C24-5895-JCC Plaintiff, CORRECTED ORDER 11 v. 12 CHERYL STRANGE, 13 Defendant.

15 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Dkt. No. 34) of the Court’s order granting Defendant’s motion for summary judgment and dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint, (see Dkt. No. 32). Having thoroughly considered the briefing and the relevant record, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Plaintiff’s motion as explained herein.

20 A motion for reconsideration is generally disfavored. LCR 7(h)(1). It 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.”

23 Id. As this Court has frequently indicated, reconsideration should not be used to ask it to “rethink what it had already thought through—rightly or wrongly.” Wilcox v. Hamilton Constr., LLC, 426 25 F. Supp. 3d 788, 791 (W.D. Wash. 2019) (cleaned up); see, e.g., Brown v. Murphy, 2023 WL 26 6481566, slip op. at 1 (W.D. Wash. 2023); Hoffman v. Transworld Sys. Inc., 2019 WL 109437, slip op. at 1 (W.D. Wash. 2019). Rather, it is limited to manifest error or new facts or legal authority. LCR 7(h)(1).

3 As to the primary ruling, granting Defendant’s motion for summary judgment and dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice, (see Dkt. No. 32), Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Dkt. No. 34), fails to demonstrate either manifest error or new facts or legal authority that would allow his case to continue. Nevertheless, Plaintiff’s reconsideration motion does point to new facts which, if proven, could result in a potentially colorable due process claim. (See Dkt. No. 45.) But absent supporting evidence (and here there is none), allegations alone are insufficient to withstand summary judgment.

10 Thus, the Court revises its prior order and removes the assignment of a strike pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

12 Thus, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Dkt. No. 34) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, as described above.

15 DATED this 23rd day of October 2025.

A John C. Coughenour 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE