Andrew Greenwood, also known as Tax Truelove v. Detective Mark Brownell, et al.

FILED IN THE 3 EASTER U N . S D . I S D T I R S I T C R T I C O T F C W O A U S R H T I NGTON Apr 27, 2026 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON ANDREW GREENWOOD, No. 4:25-cv-05022-MKD also known as Tax Truelove, 8 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 9 Plaintiff, vs. ECF No. 23 DETECTIVE MARK BROWNELL, et al., Defendants.

14 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration. ECF No. 23.

15 Plaintiff does not specify what he is asking the Court to reconsider. On March 26, 2026, the Court dismissed this action pursuant to LCivR 41(b)(2) based on Plaintiff’s failure to keep the Court informed of his change of address. ECF No. 21.

18 Plaintiff filed the present motion on April 13, 2026. ECF No. 23. He does not state why he did not keep the Court informed of his address between December 4, 2025, and April 13, 2026. He did not file a Second Amended Complaint that cures the deficiencies of his First Amended Complaint.

2 Plaintiff is now in custody at the Idaho State Correctional Institution in Boise, Idaho. ECF No. 23 at 3; ECF No. 23-1. Plaintiff contends that a Walla Walla Superior Court Judge ordered Walla Walla County Corrections (WWCD) to forward Plaintiff’s mail to the Idaho Department of Corrections (IDOC), and the Walla Walla District Attorney signed this order. ECF No. 23 at 1. Plaintiff does not state when this occurred or when he was transferred to the custody of the IDOC. Plaintiff also fails to explain how this excused his own obligation to keep this Court informed of his address, an obligation of which he was informed by letter dated March 6, 2025.

10 See ECF No. 3.

11 A motion for reconsideration may be reviewed under either Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 59(e) (motion to alter or amend a judgment) or Rule 60(b) (relief from judgment). Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 14 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). “A district court may properly reconsider its decision if it ‘(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.’” Smith v. Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist., 727 F.3d 950, 955 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting School Dist. No. 1J, 5 F.3d at 1263). “There may also be other, highly unusual, circumstances warranting reconsideration.” School Dist. No. 1J, 5 F.3d at 1263.

1 Plaintiff contends that he was “moved 5 times in Idaho and put on a restriction from ordering materials for 6 weeks, making it not possible to obtain paper, pens, stamps until now.” ECF No. 23 at 2. Plaintiff does not account for his failure to keep the Court apprised of his change of address for the nearly three-month period between December 4, 2025, and March 2, 2026, during which his mail was returned on January 20, 2026, long before any restrictions on his ability to order pen, paper or stamps were imposed. Plaintiff fails to address why he did not notify the Court of his change of address within a reasonable time.

9 Plaintiff has not presented newly discovered evidence, demonstrated that the Court committed clear error, or shown that the Order dismissing this action was manifestly unjust. There has also been no intervening change in controlling law, and Plaintiff pleads no other circumstances warranting reconsideration. Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration, ECF No. 23, is denied.

14 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 15 1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration, ECF No. 23, is DENIED.

16 2. The file shall REMAIN closed. The Court shall entertain no further documents in this case, other than a notice of appeal of the Court’s ruling regarding the Motion for Reconsideration, and the Clerk of Court shall note no further motions or petitions for hearing in this case.

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

2 IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter this Order and provide a copy to Plaintiff.

4 DATED April 27, 2026. s/Mary K. Dimke 6 MARY K. DIMKE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE