Jones v. Sinclair et al

Filing 11

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 10 Motion for Reconsideration by Judge Richard A Jones.(LMK) CC: Plaintiff

HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9

ROXIE JONES,
Plaintiff,

10

12

STEPHEN SINCLAIR, et al.,
Defendants.

13

This matter comes before the court on Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration. Dkt.

14
15

ORDER

v.

11

CASE NO. C14-1241RAJ-MAT

# 10. The court DENIES the motion.
On August 14, 2014, the court issued an order, which the Honorable Mary Alice

16
17

Theiler, United States Magistrate Judge, had recommended for entry. That order

18

declined to impose an ex parte temporary restraining order, and instead renoted Plaintiff’s

19

motion as a motion for a preliminary injunction. That motion will be ripe on September

20

26.

21

A motion for reconsideration must demonstrate either “manifest error in the prior

22

ruling” or “new facts or legal authority [that] could not have been brought to [the court’s]

23

attention earlier with reasonable diligence.” Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 7(h)(1).

24

Plaintiff’s motion meets neither standard, and the court accordingly denies it. Balancing

25

all factors, including Plaintiff’s decision not to seek relief from the court until just days

26

before Defendants began enforcing the policy he challenges, the court finds that the

27
28

ORDER – 1

1

schedule Judge Theiler has imposed for considering Plaintiff’s request for injunctive

2

relief is adequate.

3

The court notes, moreover, that the order ensured that Plaintiff himself would not

4

suffer irreparable harm before Judge Theiler considers the motion for an injunction.

5

Plaintiff insists that other inmates will suffer irreparable harm, but he has presented no

6

evidence to support that assertion. The court will not award relief on behalf of other

7

inmates at this time.

8

Finally, the court notes that Plaintiff refers repeatedly to a motion for certification

9

of a class. Plaintiff did not file a motion for class certification. He included a request for

10

certification at the conclusion of his complaint. If he wishes to file a class certification

11

motion, he may do so. Alternatively, Judge Theiler may consider his brief request for

12

certification at the conclusion of his complaint as a motion for class certification. In any

13

event, initial consideration of class certification is a matter for Judge Theiler, who is

14

responsible for initial consideration of motions in this action, in accordance with

15

Amended General Order 03-12, dated September 12, 2012.

16

DATED this 27th day of August, 2014.

17

A

18
19

The Honorable Richard A. Jones
United States District Court Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ORDER – 2