Fuller et al v. Johnson

Filing 9

ORDER Denying 8 Motion for Reconsideration by Judge Robert S. Lasnik.(TF) cc: Pro Se pltfs

1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

6
7
8

ADRIAN FULLER, et al.,

9

Plaintiffs,

10

v.

11

JEH JOHNSON,

12

Case No. C14-208RSL
ORDER DENYING MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION

Defendant.

13
14
15

This matter comes before the Court on “Plaintiff’s (sic) Motion for
Reconsideration for Appointment of Counsel.” Dkt. # 8. On March 6, 2014, the Court
denied Plaintiffs’ motion for the appointment of counsel because Plaintiffs did not

16
demonstrate diligence in seeking counsel and their claims are of dubious merit. Id. at 217
18
19

3. Plaintiffs disagree with the Court’s findings and have submitted additional evidence
in support of their request for reconsideration. Dkt. # 8.
Motions for reconsideration are disfavored in this district and will be granted

20

only upon a “showing of manifest error in the prior ruling” or “new facts or legal

21

authority which could not have been brought to [the Court’s] attention earlier with

22

reasonable diligence.” LCR 7(h)(1). Plaintiffs have not met this burden. Contrary to

23

Plaintiffs’ contention, the Court considered that Plaintiffs’ former attorney stopped

24

representing them just before they filed the above-captioned case. Dkt. # 4 at 2.

25

Plaintiffs, however, failed to submit any evidence from which the Court could find that

26

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION - 1

1

they had made a single attempt to obtain counsel since that date. Id. Plaintiffs have not

2

demonstrated that this finding was manifest error. In addition, Plaintiffs have not

3

argued that the evidence submitted could not have been presented to the Court earlier.

4

Even if the Court were to consider the list of attorneys and law firms attached to their

5
6
7

motion for reconsideration, Plaintiffs still fail to demonstrate that they have made any
meaningful attempts to obtain counsel since their lawyer stopped representing them in
February. The general list of law firms and attorneys provides no insight into the nature
or timing of Plaintiffs’ efforts. Dkt. # 8-6.

8
With respect to the Court’s finding that Plaintiffs’ claims are of dubious legal
9
10
11

merit, Plaintiffs simply disagree. They argue generally that Title VII claims have merit,
but that is insufficient for reconsideration. Furthermore, Plaintiffs have not shown
manifest error in the Court’s finding that their claims are likely barred by res judicata.

12

Despite Plaintiffs’ arguments to the contrary, the Equal Employment Opportunity

13

Commission’s decision attached to their motion for reconsideration affirmed an earlier

14

agency decision dismissing Plaintiffs’ complaint because it was untimely. Dkt. # 8-5.

15

In sum, Defendants have not shown manifest error or the existence of new facts or legal

16

authority that could not have been brought to the Court’s attention with reasonable

17

diligence.

18
19
20
21

For all of the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration (Dkt. # 8)
is DENIED.
DATED this 25th day of March, 2014.

A

22

Robert S. Lasnik
United States District Judge

23
24
25
26

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION - 2