Hazelquist v. City of Ritzville et al

Filing 144

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR PRO BONO COUNSEL AND MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL. Plaintiffs Motion for New Trial ECF No. 141 and Motion for Pro Bono Counsel ECF No. 140 are DENIED. Plaintiffs in forma pauperis status remains REVOKED. NO FURTHER PLEADINGS WILL BE ACCEPTED IN THIS CLOSED CASE. Signed by Chief Judge Thomas O. Rice. (LLH, Courtroom Deputy)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

6
7

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

8
9
10
11

v.
CITY OF RITZVILLE, OFFICER
STEPHAN, OFFICER KLEWIN,
PAT HULL, and WASHINGTON
STATE PATROL,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR PRO BONO
COUNSEL AND MOTION FOR NEW
TRIAL

12
13
14

Defendants.
BEFORE THE COURT are Plaintiff’s Motion for Pro Bono Counsel (ECF

15

No. 140) and Motion for New Trial, reinstatement of in forma pauperis status, add

16

new defendants, and a new judge (ECF Nos. 141, 142, 143). These matters were

17

submitted for consideration without oral argument. The Court has reviewed the

18

record and files therein, and is fully informed. For the reasons discussed below,

19

the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motions.

20

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRO BONO COUNSEL
AND MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL ~ 1

1

BACKGROUND

2

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

3

2014. ECF No. 9. In her Complaint, Plaintiff asserted that, after a traffic stop, she

4

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

5

facility. Id. On May 27, 2015, the Court dismissed Defendant City of Ritzville

6

without prejudice for failure to timely serve. ECF No. 85. On June 19, 2015, the

7

Court granted Defendants Washington State Patrol, Dustin Stephan, and Defendant

8

Patricia Hull’s Motions for Summary Judgment, dismissing all claims against these

9

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

10

Klewin’s Motion for Summary Judgment, dismissing all claims against him and

11

entering final judgment for all Defendants. ECF No. 120. On October 8, 2015, the

12

Court denied Plaintiff’s third motion for reconsideration. ECF No. 23. On August

13

15, 2017, the Ninth Circuit affirmed this Court’s decisions. ECF No. 136. The

14

Mandate from the Circuit was filed on September 21, 2017. ECF No. 138.

15

In the instant motions, Plaintiff requests the Court appoint pro bono counsel

16

(ECF No. 140) and seeks a new trial, reinstatement of in forma pauperis status, add

17

new defendants, and a new judge (ECF Nos. 141, 142, 143).

18
19
20

DISCUSSION
A motion for a new trial “must be filed no later than 28 days after the entry
of judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(b). Here, Judgment was entered on October 5,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRO BONO COUNSEL
AND MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL ~ 2

1

2015. ECF No. 121. Plaintiff did not file her Motion for New Trial until nearly

2

two years later, September 27, 2017, thereby far exceeding the 28 day limit. ECF

3

No. 141. While Plaintiff cites to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50 as the

4

authority for her request for a new trial, Rule 50 is clearly inapplicable. Even so,

5

Rule 50 requires new trial motions to be filed under Rule 59.

6

However, this case was resolved on motions to dismiss and for summary

7

judgment, no trial was held. Even if the Court liberally construes Plaintiff’s

8

motion as seeking relief from judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60, it is untimely.

9

Relief there must be sought within a reasonable time and for mistake, fraud, or

10

newly discovered evidence, within one year after entry of judgment. Moreover, no

11

justifiable grounds for granting a new trial or relief from judgment have been

12

articulated or shown. Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s untimely and

13

unsubstantiated Motion for New Trial is denied.

14

The Court need not address Plaintiff’s Motion for Pro Bono Counsel, or

15

request for reinstatement of in forma pauperis status, to add new defendants, and a

16

new judge. These motions are all now moot as the Court denies Plaintiff’s Motion

17

for New Trial.

18

//

19

//

20

//

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRO BONO COUNSEL
AND MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL ~ 3

1
2
3
4

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
Plaintiff’s Motion for New Trial (ECF No. 141) and Motion for Pro Bono
Counsel (ECF No. 140) are DENIED.
Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status remains REVOKED.

5

NO FURTHER PLEADINGS WILL BE ACCEPTED IN THIS CLOSED CASE.

6

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

7
8

copies to Plaintiff. The file remains CLOSED.
DATED October 27, 2017.

9
10

THOMAS O. RICE
Chief United States District Judge

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRO BONO COUNSEL
AND MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL ~ 4