Stephens v. Fredrickson et al

Filing 56

ORDER denying pltf's 54 Motion for Reconsideration by Judge Richard A Jones.(RS) Modified on 3/22/2013/cc Stephens (RS).

HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8

FRED STEPHENS,

9
10
11

Plaintiff,

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

CONSOLIDATED

v.
SGT. TODD FREDRICKSON, et al.,

12

LEAD CASE NO. C12-1067RAJ

ORDER

Defendants.
This matter comes before the court on Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the
court’s March 4, 2013 order consolidating a case Plaintiff originally filed in state court
(No. C12-1898RAJ) with this case, which Plaintiff originally filed in this court.
Motions for reconsideration are “disfavored,” and the court “will ordinarily deny
[a motion for reconsideration] in the absence of a showing of manifest error in the prior
ruling or a showing of new facts or legal authority which could not have been brought to
its attention earlier with reasonable diligence.” Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 7(h)(1).
Plaintiff’s motion (Dkt. # 54) makes neither showing, and the court therefore DENIES it.
The court notes, moreover, that a motion for reconsideration is not an opportunity
to raise new legal arguments, unless those arguments are based on authority that the party
could not have cited in its original motion. Plaintiff’s motion asks the court to exercise
its discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claims (per 28 U.S.C.
§ 1367(c)), and to abstain from deciding a question of state law. Those requests appeared

26
nowhere in his original motion, and therefore the court cannot “reconsider” its decision
27
28

ORDER – 1

1

on those requests. In any event, no abstention doctrine applies here, because Plaintiff has

2

no pending case in state court.

3

DATED this 22nd day of March, 2013.

4

A

5
6

The Honorable Richard A. Jones
United States District Court Judge

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ORDER – 2