Akkmal v. Transportation Security Administration et al

Filing 76

ORDER denying 75 Plaintiff's Amended Motion for New Trial by Judge Robert S. Lasnik.(MD)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

6
7

MARIYAM AKMAL,

8
9
10
11

Plaintiff,
v.
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et
al.,

Case No. C12-1499RSL
ORDER DENYING AMENDED
MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL

Defendants.

12
13

This matter comes before the Court on “Plaintiff’s Amended Motion for A New

14

Trial.” Dkt. # 75. On March 7, 2014, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to compel

15

discovery and dismissed her claims against the unknown “John and Jane Doe”

16

defendants. Dkt. # 72. The Court previously dismissed Plaintiff’s claims against the

17

government and the individual government employees in their official capacities. Dkt. #

18

43. Plaintiff now seeks relief pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. (“Rule”) 59, which provides

19

that a court may grant a new trial on all or some issues (1) “after a jury trial, for any

20

reason for which a new trial has heretofore been granted in an action at law in federal

21
22
23

court,” or (2) “after a nonjury trial, for any reason for which a rehearing has heretofore
been granted in a suit in equity in federal court.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(a)(1). Because
there was no trial in this case, the Court construes Plaintiff’s motion as a motion for
reconsideration under LCR 7(h) and relief from a judgment or order under Rule 60(b).

24
25
26

ORDER DENYING AMENDED
MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL - 1

1

Motions for reconsideration are disfavored and will be granted only upon a

2

“showing of manifest error in the prior ruling” or “new facts or legal authority which

3

could not have been brought to [the Court’s] attention earlier with reasonable diligence.”

4

LCR 7(h)(1). The Ninth Circuit has called reconsideration “an extraordinary remedy, to

5
6
7

be used sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.”
Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000) (internal
quotation marks omitted). Plaintiff has not met this burden. Instead, Plaintiff presents
the same arguments that the Court previously considered when it dismissed Plaintiff’s

8
claims against the government and the individual, unknown TSA employees. While
9
10
11

Plaintiff does present new evidence related to a separate civil rights lawsuit, e.g., dkt. #
74-3; dkt # 74-4; dkt. # 74-5, she has not demonstrated that this “new evidence” could
not have brought to the Court’s attention earlier. Even if the Court were to consider this

12

evidence, it would not alter the Court’s previous findings supporting dismissal of her

13

claims. Plaintiff has not shown manifest error or the existence of new facts or legal

14

authority.

15

Plaintiff’s motion does not fare better as a motion for relief from a judgment or

16

order. Pursuant to Rule 60(b), a judgment or order may be vacated for any one of the

17

following reasons:

18
19
20

(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered
evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time
to move for a new trial under 59(b); (3) fraud . . . misrepresentation, or
misconduct of an adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has
been satisfied . . . or (6) any other reason that justifies relief.

21

Plaintiff contends that she is entitled to relief because the “verdict [is] against the weight

22

of evidence” and the government attorneys committed misconduct. The Court,

23

therefore, considers the motion under subsections 3 and 6.

24
25
26

ORDER DENYING AMENDED
MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL - 2

1

To prevail on a Rule 60(b)(3) motion, “the moving party must prove by clear and

2

convincing evidence that the verdict was obtained through fraud, misrepresentation, or

3

other misconduct and the conduct complained of prevented the losing party from fully

4

and fairly presenting [its case].” De Saracho v. Custom Food Mach., 206 F.3d 874, 880

5
6
7

(9th Cir. 2000). Plaintiff argues that counsel for the government engaged in misconduct
when it included counsel involved in a separate case brought by Plaintiff in
communications with Plaintiff. Dkt. # 75 at 10. Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, that
conduct does not demonstrate that counsel for the government was involved in a

8
conspiracy to damage her case. Similarly, her allegation that the government forced her
9
10
11

to dismiss a claim by threatening her lacks merit. See id. at 13. Plaintiff fails to present
evidence that the government engaged in any misconduct during the course of this
matter and even if the actions she identifies constitute misconduct, she has not shown

12

that the conduct prevented her from fairly presenting her case. Plaintiff, therefore, fails

13

to meet her burden under Rule 60(b)(3).

14

Rule 60(b)(6) is a catch-all provision that should be used “sparingly as an

15

equitable remedy to prevent manifest injustice.” United States v. Alpine Land &

16

Reservoir Co., 984 F.2d 1047, 1049 (9th Cir. 1993). “[R]elief normally will not be

17

granted unless the moving party is able to show both injury and that circumstances

18

beyond its control prevented timely action to protect its interests.” Id. Plaintiff has not

19
20
21

demonstrated that manifest injustice will result absent the relief she seeks. Rather,
Plaintiff repeats arguments and allegations that she has raised throughout this litigation.
The Court has considered these arguments in the context of other motions and has not
found them persuasive. Plaintiff, therefore, has not shown exceptional circumstances

22
justifying the extraordinary relief available under Rule 60(b)(6).
23
24
25
26

ORDER DENYING AMENDED
MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL - 3

1
2

For all of the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s amended motion for a new trial (Dkt.
# 75) is DENIED.

3
4

DATED this 30th day of April, 2014.

5
6

A

7

Robert S. Lasnik
United States District Judge

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

ORDER DENYING AMENDED
MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL - 4