Jeffrey-Steven of the House of Jarrett v. Ige et al
EO: COURT ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION RE: EO NO DETERMINATIONS UNTIL DEFENDANTS JOINDER; OTHERS.(JUDGE LESLIE E. KOBAYASHI) (afe)COURTS CERTIFICATE of Service - Non-Registered CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)
Case 1:21-cv-00272-LEK-RT Document 73 Filed 09/08/21 Page 1 of 2
PageID #: 543
CIVIL NO. 21-000272 LEK-RT
Jeffrey-Steven of the House of Jarrett vs. David Ige et al.,
Leslie E. Kobayashi
COURT ACTION: EO: COURT ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
CLARIFICATION RE: EO NO DETERMINATIONS UNTIL DEFENDANTS
On August 18, 2021, pro se Plaintiff Jeffrey-Steven of the House of Jarrett, also
known as Jeffrey S. Jarrett (“Plaintiff”), filed his “Notice upon the Court and Declaration
of Fact; Motion for TRO” (“Motion for TRO”). [Dkt. no. 63.] On August 23, 2021, this
Court informed the parties that it would not consider the merits of Plaintiff’s Motion for
TRO until it resolved the defendants’ pending motions to dismiss. [Minutes - EO: Court
Order Regarding Plaintiff’s Motion for TRO, filed 8/23/21 (dkt. no. 65) (“8/23/21 EO”).]
On August 29, 2021, Plaintiff filed a document titled “Motion for Clarification Re: EO
No Determination Until Defendants Joinder; Others.” [Dkt. no. 67.] Plaintiff’s filing is
liberally construed as a motion for reconsideration of the 8/23/21 EO (“Motion for
Reconsideration”). The Motion for Reconsideration is suitable for disposition without a
hearing and without further briefing. See Local Rule LR7.1(d) (listing motions for
reconsideration among the motions that “shall be decided without a hearing”); Local
Rule LR60.1 (stating no memorandum in opposition to a motion for reconsideration and
no reply in support of a motion for reconsideration “shall be filed unless directed by the
“Motions for reconsideration of interlocutory orders may be brought only upon the
following grounds: (a) Discovery of new material facts not previously available; (b)
Intervening change in law; and/or (c) Manifest error of law or fact.” Local Rule LR60.1.
Plaintiff appears to argue this Court made manifest errors of law or fact in the 8/23/21 EO
because he asserts that deferring consideration of Plaintiff’s Motion for TRO until the
motions to dismiss have been resolved hinders his right to due process and puts the case
under the defendants’ control. [Motion for Reconsideration at PageID #: 516.]
The 8/23/21 EO was issued because, if Plaintiff’s claims are dismissed, the lack of
pending claims in this case would automatically require the denial of Plaintiff’s Motion
for TRO. This Court, in the exercise of its inherent authority, found that it is not
appropriate, under the circumstances of this case, for the parties and this Court to address
Case 1:21-cv-00272-LEK-RT Document 73 Filed 09/08/21 Page 2 of 2
PageID #: 544
the Motion for TRO at this time. See Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936)
(noting that every court has the inherent power “to control the disposition of the causes on
its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants”).
Plaintiff merely disagrees with this Court’s decision, and his mere disagreement does not
constitute grounds for reconsideration. See Fisher v. Kealoha, 49 F. Supp. 3d 727, 735
(D. Hawai`i 2014).
Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration is therefore DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Submitted by: Agalelei Elkington, Courtroom Manager
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?