Bykov v. Rosen et al
MINUTE ORDER denying 77 Motion for Reconsideration Authorized by U.S. District Judge John C Coughenour. (TH)
THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
CASE NO. C15-0713-JCC
STEVEN G. ROSEN and his marital
community, MICHELINE MURPHY and her
marital community, MARCUS NAYLOR and
his marital community, BRIAN ROGERS and
his marital community and CITY OF SEATTLE,
The following Minute Order is made by direction of the Court, the Honorable John C.
Coughenour, United States District Judge:
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Dkt. No.
77) of this Court’s order granting Defendants Rosen and Rogers’ motion to strike (Dkt. No. 62).
“Motions for reconsideration are disfavored.” LCR 7(h)(1). The Court will grant such
motions only upon a showing of manifest error or new facts or law that “could not have been
brought to its attention earlier with reasonable diligence.” Id.
Plaintiff repeats his argument that his Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) properly repleads Constitutional claims against Defendants Rosen and Rogers. (Dkt. No. 77 at 5–6.) He
over reads the Ninth Circuit’s order when he claims it requires this Court to rule on the merits of
PAGE - 1
these claims. (See id. at 5; Dkt. No. 54 at 4.) Consistent with the Ninth Circuit’s mandate, on
remand this Court considered whether Plaintiff could allege plausible claims for relief under the
First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments; it found he could not. (Dkt. Nos. 54 at 5, 56 at 3.)
Judicial immunity and judicially noticed records precluded the plausible assertion of these claims
against these Defendants—either as pled in Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, or upon
amendment. (Dkt. Nos. 56 at 3; 58 at 1.) This ruling complied with the Ninth Circuit’s mandate
and reaffirmed the Court’s dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Rosen and Rogers.
In his motion, Plaintiff also argues that judicial immunity does not bar his claims for
declaratory relief. (Dkt. No. 77 at 2.) Plaintiff did not raise this issue in his response to
Defendants’ motion to strike (Dkt. No. 66) or in his motion for reconsideration of this Court’s
prior order disposing of his Constitutional claims (Dkt. No. 57). It is not apparent that this
argument “could not have been brought to [the Court’s] attention earlier with reasonable
diligence.” See LCR 7(h)(2). Therefore, the Court will not consider it on reconsideration.
For the reasons stated herein, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Dkt. No. 77) is
DATED this 21st day of November 2017.
William M. McCool
Clerk of Court
PAGE - 2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?