Matthew Shea v. Spokane, Washington, Zack Zappone, Betsy Wilkerson, Karen...

Dec 31, 2025 1 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON MATTHEW SHEA, No. 2:25-CV-00031-JAG Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ v. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION SPOKANE, WASHINGTON, ZACK ZAPPONE, BETSY WILKERSON, KAREN STRATTON, and LORI MOTION DENIED KINNEAR, (ECF No. 16) Defendants.

Pending before the Court is Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration.

ECF No 16. Defendants ask the Court to revisit the decision to deny Defendants’ motion to dismiss as to Plaintiff’s sixth claim alleging an unlawful bill of attainder.

Defendants argue that the Court committed clear error. 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.” 389 Orange Street Partners, 179 F.3d F 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1997). Clear error requires the existence of a “definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.”

22 McMillan v. United States, 112 F.3d 1040, 1044 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Concrete Pipe & Prods. of Cal., Inc. v. Construction Laborers Pension Trust, 508 U.S. 602, 623 (1993).

25 Here, Defendants offer no newly discovered evidence and offer no intervening change in the law. Rather, Defendants ask the Court to find the previous decision was issued in clear error. The Court does finds no clear error in || the previous ruling. The Court previously denied Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss as to Plaintiff's bill of attainder claim finding that based on the lenient standard of a motion to dismiss, Plaintiff raised some facts that, if proven, may support the 4}| claim of an unlawful bill of attatnder. ECF No. 15. “[O]nce a claim has been 5|| stated adequately, it may be supported by showing any set of facts consistent with 6|| the allegations in the complaint.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 7|| 563 (2007). Plaintiff has alleged facts supporting his claim of punishment. ECF No. 1-1 at 54! (“The resolution, or an effect of it, provides for direct or indirect 91! banishment of Pastor Shea from Spokane or from association with, assembly with, 10}) or petitioning government officials”; “Pastor Shea was prohibited from accessing publicly accessible areas of the Spokane City Hall building”). If proven to be true, these facts would support a claim for an unlawful bill of attainder. Consequently, I3 the Court denies Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED: 1. Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration, ECF No. 16, is DENIED. : 2. Defendants’ Answer shall be filed 30 days from the posting of this order. Defendant’s Answer need not address those claims already dismissed.

19 IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Executive is directed to file this Order and provide copies to counsel.

21 DATED December 31, 2025.

23 AMES GOEKE 24 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE “ECF No. 1-1 at 54 is designated as page 50 of the Complaint.