Evans v. Patrick et al

Filing 40

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION re 39 - Signed by JUDGE DERRICK K. WATSON on 9/17/13. (emt, )CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEParticipants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Brian Evans served by first class mail at the address of record on September 17, 2013.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAI`I
BRIAN EVANS,

CIVIL NO. 13-00268 SOM-BMK

Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

vs.
DEVAL PATRICK, Governor, State of
Massachusetts, in his individual and
official capacity, ET AL.
Defendants.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
INTRODUCTION
Before the Court is Plaintiff pro se Brian Evans’ (“Plaintiff”) Motion
for Reconsideration of Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Recusal, filed on
September 16, 2013 (“Motion”). Pursuant to Local Rule 7.2(d), the Court finds this
matter suitable for disposition without a hearing. After careful consideration of the
Motion and the relevant legal authority, Plaintiff’s Motion is hereby DENIED.
BACKGROUND
In his Motion for Recusal, Plaintiff sought the recusal of Chief United
States District Judge Susan Oki Mollway in his seven cases before her, on the
1

grounds that he filed a Complaint of Judicial Misconduct against her, and because
the orders entered in his cases evidence her bias against him. This Court denied the
Motion for Recusal in an order dated September 12, 2013 (“9/12/13 Order”),
concluding that recusal was not warranted under either 28 U.S.C. §§ 144 or 455.
Plaintiff now seeks reconsideration of the 9/12/13 Order.
DISCUSSION
This district court recognizes three grounds for granting
reconsideration of an order: “(1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the
availability of new evidence; and (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent
manifest injustice.” White v. Sabatino, 424 F. Supp. 2d 1271, 1274 (D. Haw. 2006)
(citing Mustafa v. Clark County Sch. Dist., 157 F.3d 1169, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 1998)).
Although Plaintiff does not specify the legal basis upon which he
brings his Motion, his arguments indicate that he simply disagrees with the Court’s
denial of his Motion for Recusal. Plaintiff, therefore, fails to raise any grounds
warranting reconsideration of the 9/12/13 Order. In his Motion, Plaintiff again
argues that Chief Judge Mollway reached the wrong decisions in his various cases,
claiming that:
While Plaintiff has never met Judge Mollway, Plaintiff contends
she is more interested in clearing her docket than she is in taking
a serious look at the Plaintiff’s case. Plaintiff believes he did
2

adequately state a claim, and that the lawsuits she has dismissed
were quite similar to those she permitted. It was only when it
became clear that the Plaintiff intended to file numerous actions,
as is his right, that Judge Mollway began holding Plaintiff to a
much higher standard than his initial lawsuits which were
permitted to go forward and which had the very same
deficiencies that she later made an issue in Orders dismissing
additional case filings. The appearance of bias is all that is
required. . . . The Plaintiff never had an opportunity to even
request relief under the Stripping Doctrine in his lawsuits, and
it’s clear the judge in this case, in near-identical Orders
dismissing several Complaints, is utilizing a computer software
program to issue her Orders and merely “filling in the blanks” as
it pertains to dismissing the Complaints. One need only review
her every near-identical Orders to confirm this.
Motion at 1-2.
Plaintiff’s simple disagreement with orders issued by Chief Judge
Mollway and this Court’s denial of his Motion for Recusal is not a sufficient basis
for reconsideration. This district court has recognized that “[m]ere disagreement
with a previous order is an insufficient basis for reconsideration.” White, 424 F.
Supp. 2d at 1274 (citing Leonq v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 689 F. Supp. 1572 (D. Haw.
1988)). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED.

3

CONCLUSION
On the basis of the foregoing, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for
Reconsideration.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED AT HONOLULU, HAWAI‘I, September 17, 2013.

/s/ Derrick K. Watson
Derrick K. Watson
United States District Judge

Brian Evans v. Deval Patrick, Governor, et al.; Civil No. 13-00268 SOM-BMK;
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
4