Hood v. King County et al

Filing 145

ORDER granting plaintiff's 138 Motion to Seal; denying plaintiff's 139 Motion for Reconsideration ; denying plaintiff's 140 Sealed Motion by Judge Robert S. Lasnik.(RS)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

6
7
8

LUCI HOOD,
Plaintiff,

9

v.

10
11

No. C15-828RSL

KING COUNTY, et al.,

ORDER DENYING MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION

Defendants.

12
13
14

This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration. Dkt.

15

## 139, 140.1 Plaintiff argues that the Court overlooked issues of material fact and misapplied

16

clear standards of law in granting summary judgment to the defendants. See Dkt. # 136.

17

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

18

“showing of manifest error in the prior ruling” or “new facts or legal authority which could not

19

have been brought to [the Court’s] attention earlier with reasonable diligence.” LCR 7(h)(1).

20

Plaintiff has not met this burden.

21
22

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, like plaintiff’s opposition to the defendants’
summary judgment motions, highlights portions of the record suggesting that defendants

23
24
25

1

Plaintiff also moves for leave to file an unredacted version of this motion for reconsideration
under seal. Dkt. # 138. In light of the sensitive nature of the facts underlying this case and plaintiff’s
motion, and the fact that the redactions in question are minimal, the Court grants that motion.

26
ORDER DENYING MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION

1

incorrectly determined that detention was warranted under the Involuntary Treatment Act (ITA).

2

But like plaintiff’s opposition briefing, plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration fails to identify

3

facts suggesting gross negligence or bad faith sufficient to overcome defendants’ qualified

4

immunity. Plaintiff argues that “knowing violation of legal standards is gross negligence and

5

defeats qualified immunity,” Dkt. # 139 at 4, but even viewing the evidence in the light most

6

favorable to plaintiff, the record does not support plaintiff’s allegation that defendants

7

knowingly violated the applicable statutes and regulations. Plaintiff has not shown manifest

8

error or the existence of new facts or legal authority.

9
10

For all of the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Dkt. ## 139, 140)

11

is DENIED. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file the unredacted version of that motion for

12

reconsideration under seal (Dkt. # 138) is GRANTED.

13
14

SO ORDERED this 31st day of March, 2017.

15

A

16

Robert S. Lasnik
United States District Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
ORDER DENYING MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION

-2-