In re: Jerome Talley

Filing 18

ORDER on 17 Motion for Reconsideration signed by Judge Ricardo S Martinez. Respondent's request for reconsideration of the Court's previous order is DENIED.**2 PAGE(S), PRINT ALL**(ST)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8

In re: JEROME TALLEY,

9

Respondent.

CASE NO. MC15-164MJP
ORDER ON MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION

10
11

Respondent previously filed a proposed “Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of

12

Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody.” Dkt. #14. After reviewing the pleading in light of

13

the Bar Order under which Respondent is currently operating (Dkt. #3) and under 28 U.S.C. §

14

1915(g), this Court declined to file the pleading and barred Respondent from proceeding. The

15

rationale was simple: both under the Bar Order and § 1915(g), Respondent must file an affidavit

16

declaring under penalty of perjury that he is in “imminent danger of serious bodily injury or death.”

17

His pleading contained no such declaration. Dkt #15 at 2.

18
19
20
21
22

Respondent has now filed a Motion for Reconsideration of that order. Dkt. #17. Local
Rule 7(h) governs such motions:
Motions for reconsideration are disfavored. The court will ordinarily deny
such motions in the absence of a showing of manifest error in the prior ruling
or a showing of new facts or legal authority which could not have been
brought to its attention earlier with reasonable diligence.

23
24

ORDER ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 1

1

Respondent’s motion does not satisfy this standard. He alleges no manifest error in the

2

Court’s prior ruling, nor does he present new facts or legal authority which he claims could not

3

have been brought to the Court’s attention earlier. While he does include within the motion for

4

reconsideration an allegation that “he is in imminent danger of serious physical bodily injury or

5

his death if he is not transferred from the Washington State Department of Corrections” (Dkt #17

6

at 3), it is an empty recitation devoid of any supporting factual evidence. Nor is there any showing

7

of why he could not have come forth with such an allegation (along with corroborating evidence)

8

when he first filed his motion.
Accordingly, Respondent’s request for reconsideration of the Court’s previous order is

9
10

DENIED.
The Clerk is ordered to provide copies of this order to Respondent and to all counsel of

11
12

record.
Dated: June 28, 2017.

13

A

14
15

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

-2