Winterer v. Hoctor et al
Filing
35
ORDER DENYING MOTIONS 33 Motion; denying 34 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Rosanna Malouf Peterson. (AY, Case Administrator)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
6
7
JARED ANTHONY WINTERER,
a.k.a. JARED ANTHONY ROSE,
NO: 1:16-CV-3171-RMP
8
Plaintiff,
ORDER DENYING MOTIONS
9
v.
10
11
12
STATE OF WASHINGTON,
COUNTY OF KITTITAS and
KITTITAS COUNTY
CORRECTIONS CENTER,
13
Defendants.
14
15
By Order filed February 7, 2017, the Court dismissed this action without
16
prejudice to Plaintiff challenging his guilty pleas in appropriate state court and
17
federal habeas proceedings. ECF No. 31. Judgment was entered and the file was
18
closed. ECF No. 32.
19
20
On February 13, 2017, Plaintiff presented a document titled, “Motion to
Change Name for Free,” ECF No. 33. On February 23, 2017, he presented a letter
21
ORDER DENYING MOTIONS -- 1
1
which has been construed as a Motion for Reconsideration, ECF No. 34. The
2
motions were considered without oral argument on the date signed below.
3
Plaintiff, a prisoner housed at the Kittitas County Correction Center in
4
Ellensburg, Washington, is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. The Court
5
did not direct service on named Defendants, but Attorney Heather C. Yakely
6
entered a notice of appearance on behalf of Kittitas County Correction Center,
7
Kittitas County Superior Court and Lower Kittitas County District Court. ECF No.
8
20. Each of those Defendants has been dismissed, ECF No. 34. The Court did not
9
direct Attorney Yakely to respond to Plaintiff’s pending motions.
10
11
MOTION FOR NAME CHANGE
Plaintiff asks that his name be changed to include his religious and political
12
views, as well as his father’s name. He wishes to change his name to “Aryan
13
Swaztika Rose.” He presents no authority by which a federal District Court can
14
legally effect a name change. The Court declines to do so. Therefore, IT IS
15
ORDERED Plaintiff’s Motion, ECF NO. 33, is DENIED.
16
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
17
In the single page document received on February 23, 2017, Plaintiff seems
18
to contend that he fixed all the deficiencies of his complaint and it should not have
19
been dismissed because the State of Washington is a person. Plaintiff asks that his
20
case be re-opened and he be allowed to file a Second Amended Complaint.
21
ORDER DENYING MOTIONS -- 2
1
Motions for reconsideration serve a limited function. “‘[T]he major grounds
2
that justify reconsideration involve an intervening change of controlling law, the
3
availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest
4
injustice.’” Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe v. Hodel, 882 F.2d 364, 369 n.5 (9th Cir.
5
1989). Such motions are not the proper vehicle for offering evidence or theories of
6
law that were available to the party at the time of the initial ruling. Fay Corp. v.
7
Bat Holdings I, Inc., 651 F.Supp. 307, 309 (W.D. Wash. 1987).
8
9
In the instant case, Plaintiff has not alleged that there has been an
intervening change of controlling law. Likewise, he has not offered newly
10
discovered evidence that would justify this Court taking a second look at the issue
11
in question (i.e., his failure to present facts from which a plausible claim for relief
12
against identified Defendants could be inferred).
13
The only remaining question for this Court to consider is whether its own
14
prior ruling should be altered to “correct a clear error or prevent manifest
15
injustice.” Pyramid Lake, 882 F.2d at 369 n.5. The Court finds no clear error or
16
manifest injustice in its finding that Plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which
17
relief may be granted, and that any challenge to his pleas of guilty to state charges
18
should be pursued in appropriate state appellate and federal habeas proceedings.
19
Plaintiff has presented no facts which would justify reconsideration of the
20
dismissal order. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED the Motion for Reconsideration,
21
ECF No. 34, is DENIED.
ORDER DENYING MOTIONS -- 3
1
IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Clerk is directed to enter this
2
Order and forward a copy to Plaintiff. The file shall remain closed. The Court
3
certifies any appeal of this Order would not be taken in good faith.
4
DATED March 29, 2017.
5
s/ Rosanna Malouf Peterson
ROSANNA MALOUF PETERSON
United States District Judge
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
ORDER DENYING MOTIONS -- 4
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?