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)

Download PDF
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-

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?