Davis et al v. Hayes et al

Filing 108

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 101 response/motion for reconsideration signed by Hon. Brian A Tsuchida. **2 PAGE(S), PRINT ALL**(Keith Davis, Prisoner ID: 936379)(PM)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 KEITH ADAIR DAVIS, Plaintiffs, 9 10 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION v. 11 WILLIAM HAYES, et al., 12 13 Case No. 2:16-cv-01709-RSM-BAT Defendants. On December 27, 2017, the Court denied plaintiff’s motion to compel. Dkts. 76 and 98. 14 On January 5, 2018, plaintiff filed a “Response to Dkt. 98,” in which he states again that the 15 documents sent to him by defendants “are not responsive to his requests.” Dkts. 101 and 102. 16 To the extent plaintiff is asking the Court to reconsider its Order (Dkt. 98), the request is denied. 17 The Court has reviewed its Order and plaintiff’s motion and finds no reason to disturb its original 18 ruling which was based, in part, on plaintiff’s failure to demonstrate why the documents that 19 have been produced to him by defendants are either incomplete or not responsive to his requests. 20 21 22 23 Motions for reconsideration are disfavored under the Court’s local rules: 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. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION -1 1 Local Rules W.D. Wash. CR 7(h)(1). Such motions are an “extraordinary remedy,” and “should 2 not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with 3 newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the 4 controlling law.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000) 5 (internal citation omitted). 6 In this case plaintiff fails to show manifest error in the Court’s prior ruling, or new facts 7 or legal authority that would warrant reconsideration of the Court’s order. Accordingly, 8 plaintiff’s “response,” Dkt. 101 is DENIED. 9 10 11 DATED this 22nd day of January, 2018. A BRIAN A. TSUCHIDA United States Magistrate Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 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?