Lemley v. Colvin et al

Filing 52

ORDER granting 51 Motion for Leave to Withdraw and Order denying 50 Plaintiff's Second Motion for Reconsideration. Attorney Dustin Douglas Deissner terminated. Signed by Magistrate Judge John T. Rodgers. (KW, Case Administrator)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

7
8 MAURIE LEMLEY,
9

Plaintiff,

10

v.

11

12 CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Commissioner of Social Security,
13
14

No. 2:13-CV-0299-JTR
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO WITHDRAW AND
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
SECOND MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION

Defendant.

15
BEFORE THE COURT is a motion for leave to withdraw by counsel of

16
17

record for Plaintiff, ECF No. 51, and Plaintiff’s Second Motion for

18

Reconsideration of the Court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of

19

Defendant. ECF No. 50. Plaintiff has been represented in this case by Dustin

20

Deissner. Defendant is represented by Jeffrey E. Staples, Special Assistant United

21

States Attorney. The parties have consented to proceed before a magistrate judge.

22

ECF No. 7.

23

1.

Motion to Withdraw

24

Counsel for Plaintiff, Mr. Deissner, seeks to withdraw as retained counsel

25

for Plaintiff given the conclusion of the scope of his agreed upon representation,

26

pursuing a motion for reconsideration. ECF No. 51.

27

Pursuant to this Court’s Local Rule 83.2(d), a motion for leave to withdraw

28

must demonstrate good cause for the withdrawal. LR 83.2(d)(4). The Court finds
ORDER . . . - 1

1

that good cause has been demonstrated in this case. Mr. Deissner’s motion to

2

withdraw as counsel of record for Plaintiff is granted and Plaintiff shall proceed in

3

this matter pro se.

4

2.

5

Second Motion for Reconsideration
On April 29, 2014, Plaintiff, through counsel, moved the Court to reconsider

6

the Court’s April 15, 2014 order finding the ALJ’s decision in this matter was

7

supported by substantial evidence and free of error. ECF No. 46. On May 27,

8

2014, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration finding Plaintiff

9

failed to provide a proper basis for the Court to reconsider the order under Rule 59

10

or Rule 60(b). ECF No. 48. On June 9, 2014, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for

11

reconsideration pro se, requesting that the Court again reconsider the Court’s April

12

15, 2014 order. ECF No. 50.

13

Under Rule 59(e), a motion for reconsideration may be granted only on one

14

of four grounds, “1) the motion is necessary to correct manifest errors of law or

15

fact upon which the judgment is based; 2) the moving party presents newly

16

discovered or previously unavailable evidence; 3) the motion is necessary to

17

prevent manifest injustice or 4) there is an intervening change in controlling law.”

18

Turner v. Burlington N. Santa Fe R.R. Co., 338 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th Cir. 2003)

19

(internal quotations and emphasis omitted). Motions for reconsideration are

20

disfavored and are not the place for parties to make new arguments not previously

21

raised, Northwest Acceptance Corp. v. Lynnwood Equip., Inc., 841 F.2d 918, 925–

22

926 (9th Cir. 1988), and reconsideration is not to be used to ask the Court to

23

“rethink what the court has already thought through—rightly or wrongly,” United

24

States v. Rezzonico, 32 F.Supp.2d 1112, 1116 (D.Ariz. 1998) (quoting Above the

25

Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bohannon Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D.Va. 1983)).

26

The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s motion and finds he has not stated new

27

facts, a change in intervening law, a clear error or manifestly unjust ruling, or any

28

other unusual circumstance justifying reconsideration. Therefore, Plaintiff has
ORDER . . . - 2

1

again failed to provide a proper basis for a reconsideration of the April 15, 2014

2

order. Plaintiff’s Second Motion for Reconsideration shall be denied.

3

No further motions relating to Plaintiff’s disagreement with the Court’s

4

April 15, 2014 order or relating to Plaintiff’s disagreement with the Court’s denials

5

of his motions for reconsideration will be considered. Plaintiff may be subject to

6

Rule 11 sanctions should he file any further frivolous motions in this case. See

7

Orange Prod. Credit Ass’n v. Frontline Ventures Ltd., 792 F.2d 797, 800 (9th Cir.

8

1986) (finding that sanctions are appropriate when a pleading which has been filed

9

is frivolous, legally unreasonable, or without factual foundation).

10

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

11

1.

12
13
14
15
16
17

Mr. Deissner’s Motion for Leave to Withdraw, ECF No. 51, is

GRANTED. Plaintiff shall proceed in this matter pro se.
2.

Plaintiff’s Second Motion for Reconsideration, ECF No. 50, is

DENIED.
The District Court Executive is directed to file this Order and provide copies
to Plaintiff and counsel for Defendant.
DATED June 10, 2014.

18
_____________________________________
JOHN T. RODGERS
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER . . . - 3