United States of America v. Jennings et al
ORDER denying defendant Suzanne Jennings' 63 Motion to withdraw Order; denying defendant Suzanne Jennings' 65 Motion for payment on tort by Judge Richard A Jones.(RS) cc Jennings
HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Case No. C16-79-RAJ
SUZANNE JENNINGS, et al.,
This matter comes before the Court on pro se Defendant Suzanne Jennings’
Motion to Withdraw Order Granting Summary Judgment and Dismiss Case for Lack of
Subject Matter Jurisdiction (Dkt. # 63) and Motion for Payment on Tort (Dkt. # 65). On
February 17, 2017, the Court entered an order granting summary judgment in favor of the
Government. Dkt. # 62. The Court construes Jennings’ pending motions as motions for
reconsideration. Having reviewed the motions, relevant portions of the record, and the
applicable law, the Court DENIES Jennings’ motions.
“Motions for reconsideration are disfavored.” LCR 7(h)(1). “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.” Id.
In the instant motions, Jennings contends that the undersigned has failed to
perform his constitutional duties (Dkt. # 64), asserts that he was disqualified from
handling this dispute (id.), and invoices him and the Government for personal injuries
ORDER – 1
giving rise to $342,800 in damages (Dkt. # 65). None of these contentions, nor any other
assertion contained in Jennings’ motions, has merit.
For these reasons, the Court DENIES Jennings’ Motion to Withdraw Order
Granting Summary Judgment and Dismiss Case for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction
(Dkt. # 63) and Motion for Payment on Tort (Dkt. # 65).
DATED this 3rd day of April, 2017.
The Honorable Richard A. Jones
United States District Judge
ORDER – 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?