McAdams v. Penrose et al

Filing 36

ORDER Denying 34 Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Stanley A Bastian. (PL, Case Administrator)**2 PAGES, PRINT ALL**(Grant McAdams, Prisoner ID: 303490)

1
2
FILED IN THE
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

3
4

Apr 02, 2018

5

SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK

6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

8
9 GRANT THOMAS McADAMS,
10

Plaintiff,

11

v.

No. 4:16-cv-05133-SAB

ORDER DENYING

12 ANDREW REMINGTON, MICHAEL

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR

13 TRUE, JANE SNYDER, MICHAEL J.

RECONSIDERATION

14 REZNICEK, JOHN and JANE DOE(S)
15 and RICHARD and RACHEL ROE(S),
16

Defendants.

17
18

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of Order

19 Adopting Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 34. The motion was heard
20 without oral argument.
21
22

Motion Standard
Motions for reconsideration are generally disfavored and are considered “an

23 extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of finality and
24 conservation of judicial resources.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229
25 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). A motion for reconsideration may be granted when:
26 (1) there is an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the moving party presents
27 newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence; or (3) the motion is
28 necessary to correct manifest errors of law or fact upon which the judgment is
ORDER DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION ~ 1

1 based. Turner v. Burlington N. Santa Fe R. Co., 338 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th Cir.
2 2003). Such motions are not to re-hash arguments the court has already thought
3 through, or present arguments or evidence for the first time that could reasonably
4 have been raised earlier in the litigation. See Kona Enters., Inc., 229 F.3d at 890.
5

Plaintiff has not presented any newly discovered evidence or identified a

6 clear error or a change in the controlling law. Rather, he is making the same
7 arguments he made before Judge Dimke and then this Court. As such, the Court
8 will not reconsider his arguments.
9
10

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of Order Adopting Report and

11 Recommendation, ECF No. 34, is DENIED.
12

IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter this Order,

13 forward copies to pro se Plaintiff and counsel, and close the file.
14

DATED this 2nd day of April 2018.

15
16
17
18
19
20
21

Stanley A. Bastian

United States District Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION ~ 2