Hazelquist v. City of Ritzville et al

Filing 123

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION. Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration ECF No. 122 is DENIED. Signed by Judge Thomas O. Rice. (LLH, Courtroom Deputy)

1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

6
7

HEIDI HAZELQUIST,
NO: 2:14-CV-0073-TOR
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

v.
OFFICER KLEWIN,
Defendant.

11
12
13

BEFORE THE COURT is Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No.

14

122). This matter was submitted for consideration without oral argument.

15

Although a hearing is set for October 14, 2015, this Court finds no reason to delay

16

its order. The Court—having reviewed the briefing, the record, and files therein—

17

is fully informed.

18

///

19

///

20

///

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION ~ 1

1
2

BACKGROUND
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed her Complaint in this action on March 28,

3

2014. In her Complaint, Plaintiff asserts that, after a traffic stop, she was, inter

4

alia, unlawfully arrested, assaulted, and involuntarily committed to a mental health

5

facility. ECF No. 9.

6

On May 27, 2015, this Court dismissed Defendant City of Ritzville without

7

prejudice for failure to timely serve. ECF No. 85. On June 19, 2015, this Court

8

granted Defendants Washington State Patrol and Dustin Stephan’s and Defendant

9

Patricia Hull’s motions for summary judgment, dismissing all claims against these

10

Defendants. ECF No. 86. On October 5, 2015, this Court granted Defendant

11

Klewin’s motion for summary judgment, dismissing all claims against him and

12

entering final judgment for all Defendants. ECF No. 120.

13
14
15

In the instant motion, Plaintiff, once again, asks this Court to reconsider its
past rulings. ECF No. 122.
DISCUSSION

16

A. Motion for Reconsideration

17

A motion for reconsideration may be reviewed under either Federal Rule of

18

Civil Procedure 59(e) (motion to alter or amend a judgment) or Rule 60(b) (relief

19

from judgment). Sch. Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir.

20

1993). “A district court may properly reconsider its decision if it ‘(1) is presented

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION ~ 2

1

with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision

2

was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.’”

3

Smith v. Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist., 727 F.3d 950, 955 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting School

4

Dist. No. 1J, 5 F.3d at 1263). “There may also be other, highly unusual,

5

circumstances warranting reconsideration.” School Dist. No. 1J, 5 F.3d at 1263.

6

Whether to grant a motion for reconsideration is within the sound discretion

7

of the court. Navajo Nation v. Confederated Tribes & Bands of the Yakama Indian

8

Nation, 331 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th Cir. 2003). Reconsideration is properly denied

9

when the movant “present[s] no arguments . . . that had not already been raised”

10

previously. Taylor v. Knapp, 871 F.2d 803, 805 (9th Cir. 1989); see also City of

11

Fresno v. United States, 709 F.Supp.2d 888, 916 (E.D. Cal. 2010) (“A party

12

seeking reconsideration must show more than a disagreement with the Court’s

13

decision, and recapitulation of the cases and arguments considered by the court

14

before rendering its original decision fails to carry the moving party’s burden.”).

15

As cautioned in this Court’s Scheduling Order of December 12, 2014,

16

“Motions to Reconsider are disfavored” and “must show manifest error in the prior

17

ruling or reveal new facts or legal authority which could not have been brought to

18

the Court’s attention earlier.” ECF No. 56 at 9.

19
20

This Court finds reconsideration is not warranted. Plaintiff rehashes the
same argument and allegations she has asserted in almost every pleading before

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION ~ 3

1

this Court. Although she believes this Court’s rulings are “uninformed,” she has

2

failed to show manifest error, present new facts or law that could not have been

3

brought to this Court’s attention earlier, or otherwise demonstrate any reason that

4

justifies reconsideration. This Court understands Plaintiff’s frustrations and the

5

difficulties her disability has presented throughout these proceedings. Nonetheless,

6

based on the facts presented and the law at issue, this Court cannot grant Plaintiff

7

the relief she seeks. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s third motion for reconsideration is

8

DENIED; this Court’s previous orders stand.

9

B. Appeal

10

Plaintiff’s motion asks the Court to forward her documents to the Ninth

11

Circuit Court of Appeals if she has exhausted all options with this Court. ECF No.

12

122 at 5.
The court of appeals has jurisdiction over final decisions of the district court.

13
14

28 U.S.C. § 1291. A party may bring an appeal within thirty days after the district

15

court’s entry of a judgment, order, or decree. Id. § 2107(a). The Ninth Circuit

16

Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, which can be found on the Court of Appeals

17

website, 1 govern the procedure for appellate practice before the Ninth Circuit

18

Court of Appeals.

19
20

1

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/uploads/rules/frap.pdf.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION ~ 4

1

If Plaintiff wishes to pursue an appeal of this Court’s entry of final

2

judgment, that is her right; however, it is her task to undertake. This Court does

3

not file appeals on behalf of any party. Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Appellate

4

Procedure, a notice of appeal must be filed within thirty days after entry of this

5

order. See Fed. R. App. P 4(a). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request is DENIED.

6

IT IS ORDERED:

7

Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 122) is DENIED.

8

The District Court Executive is directed to enter this Order and provide

9
10

copies to the parties. The file shall remain CLOSED.
DATED October 8, 2015.

11
12

THOMAS O. RICE
United States District Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION ~ 5