Tia v. Akasaki et al

Filing 16

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 15 . Signed by JUDGE DERRICK K. WATSON on 09/20/2013. (eps )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). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications were served by first class mail on the date of this docket entry

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
PETER R. TIA, #A101342,

) CIV. NO. 13-00335 DKW/BMK
)
Plaintiff,
) ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
) RECONSIDERATION
vs.
)
)
JASON AKASAKI, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_____________________________ )
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
On September 9, 2013, the court dismissed Plaintiff’s first amended
complaint and this action for Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim. See Order
Dismissing First Amended Complaint and Action, ECF No. 11 (“September 9
Order”). Plaintiff now seeks reconsideration of the September 9 Order, alleging
the court failed to take notice of the five exhibits he submitted with his amended
complaint before dismissing the case.1
Plaintiff is mistaken. The court carefully reviewed Plaintiff’s first
amended complaint and heavily relied on Plaintiff’s Exhibit 3, ECF No. 10-3,
when it dismissed this action. Indeed, the court repeatedly refers to Plaintiff’s

1

Plaintiff also refers to his September 11, 2013 Motion for Appointment of Counsel.
Plaintiff is notified that Magistrate Judge Puglisi denied his request for counsel on September 17,
2013. ECF No. 14.

Exhibit 3 throughout the September 9 Order. Plaintiff’s exhibits clearly support
the court’s decision that Defendants did not violate federal standards of due
process or any other constitutional rights Plaintiff possesses when they
successfully sought his involuntary medication with antipsychotic drugs.
Plaintiff provides no other persuasive reason for the court to
reconsider its decision. He sets forth no intervening change in controlling law,
new evidence, or need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. See
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)). Plaintiff’s
request for reconsideration of the September 9 Order is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, September 20, 2013.

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

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Peter R. Tia v. Jason Akasaki; Civ. No. 13-00335 DKW-BMK; ORDER
DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Tia v. Akasaki, et al., 13-00335 DKW/RLP; G:\docs\DKW shared\Pro Se Atty\Tia 13-335 DKW (frcp 59, cons.
exhs).wpd

2