Kirk L. Williams v. United States Air Force Base in Fairfax and Film Forming...

1 FILED IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT 2 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON Nov 12, 2025 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON KIRK L. WILLIAMS, No. 2:25-CV-00276-SAB 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. ORDER DENYING RULE 59 UNITED STATES AIR FORCE MOTION BASE IN FAIRFAX and FILM FORMING FOAMS PROLAB, 16 Defendants.

18 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s “Rule 59 Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment,” submitted on October 9, 2025. ECF No. 13. By Order filed October 2, 2025, the Court dismissed this action without prejudice for non-payment of the filing fee after Plaintiff failed to comply with the in forma pauperis requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and (2). ECF No. 11. Judgement was entered the same day. ECF No. 12. Plaintiff, an individual incarcerated at the Stafford Creek Corrections Center, is proceeding pro se. Defendants have not been served.

25 Plaintiff asks the Court to reinstate his complaint. ECF No. 13 at 3. He asserts that he made a “mistake,” but he does not identify the mistake. Id. at 2. He asks the Court to consider his incarceration. Id. at 2–3. Plaintiff does not state how this prevented him from completing and submitting documents needed to proceed 1|| in forma pauperis in a timely fashion as previously directed by the Court.

A motion for reconsideration of a judgment may be reviewed under either 3|| Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) (motion to alter or amend a judgment) or Rule 60(b) (relief from judgment). Sch. Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). “Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” /d. at 1263; United Nat. Ins. Co. v. Spectrum Worldwide, Inc., 9)|555 F.3d 772, 780 (9th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). Whether to grant a motion for reconsideration is within the sound discretion of the court. Navajo Nation v. 11|| Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakima Nation, 331 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th Cir. 2003). For the reasons articulated in the Order Dismissing Action, ECF No. Plaintiff's motion is DENIED.

14 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 15 1. Plaintiff's Rule 59 Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment, ECF No. 16| 13, is DENIED.

17 2. The file shall remain CLOSED.

18 3. The Court certifies that any appeal of this decision would not be taken in good faith.

20 IT ISSO ORDERED. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter this Order 21||and provide a copy to Plaintiff.

22 DATED this 12th day of November 2025. : Soba 26 Chief United States District Judge ADTATD TRADAIWTTAIA DITO CARTIATIART On