Lareina A. Sauls v. Pierce County et al.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE LAREINA A SAULS, CASE NO. 25-cv-06089-JHC Plaintiff, ORDER v. PIERCE COUNTY et al., Defendant.

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Amended Motion for Emergency ADA Accommodations and Immediate Procedural Relief. Dkt. # 24. The Court has considered the motion, Plaintiff’s declarations, Dkt. ## 25, 26, the rest of the file, and the governing law.

The Court previously denied Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion for ADA Accommodations.

Dkt. # 3; see Dkt. # 23. So the Court construes the present motion as a motion for reconsideration. “Motions for reconsideration are disfavored. 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.” LCR 7(h)(1).

Plaintiff clearly does not make either showing. She does not identify any new legal authority that requires the Court to reach a different conclusion. Nor does she show the Court made any error in its prior ruling, much less a manifest error. Instead, Plaintiff re-raises the same || issues the Court has already considered and addressed. To be abundantly clear, the ADA does not apply to federal courts. Roman v. Jefferson at Hollywood LP, 495 F. App’x 804, 806 (9th || Cir. 2012).

5 Plaintiff is further cautioned that if she files an excessive number of motions, the Court || will consider sanctions up to and including dismissal.

7 The Court DENIES the motion.

8 Dated this 22nd day of December, 2025. ° Cok □ Chan 10 John H. Chun United States District Judge