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