State of Washington, et al., v. Trump., et al

Filing 182

ORDER denying pro se movant Silver Cloud Musafir's 181 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge James L. Robart. (PM) cc: Musafir via the USPS

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

8
9
10

STATE OF WASHINGTON, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

11
v.
12
13

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
RECONSIDER ORDER
DENYING

DONALD J. TRUMP, et al.,
Defendants.

14
15

CASE NO. C17-0141JLR

Before the court is a filing by pro se movant Silver Cloud Musafir in response to

16

the court’s order striking his amicus curiae brief. (Resp. (Dkt. # 181).) The court struck

17

Mr. Musafir’s amicus curiae brief (Dkt # 85) because Mr. Musafir filed it in violation of

18

the court’s previous order regarding the filing of such briefs. (Order Striking A.C. Brief

19

(Dkt. # 90) (citing Order Re: AC Brief Filing (Dkt. # 84)).) The court, however, stated

20

that Mr. Musafir “may re-file his brief if he does so in conformity with the court’s order.”

21

(Id.) Instead of refiling his brief in conformity with the court’s order, Mr. Musafir filed

22

the present “response” to the court’s order striking his amicus curiae brief. (See Resp.)

ORDER - 1

1

The court liberally construes Mr. Musafir’s “response” as a motion to reconsider the

2

court’s ruling. 1

3

Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7(h)(1), motions for reconsideration are disfavored,

4

and the court will ordinarily deny them unless there is a showing of (a) manifest error in

5

the prior ruling, or (b) facts or legal authority which could not have been brought to the

6

court’s attention earlier with reasonable diligence. Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR

7

7(h)(1). Mr. Musafir has made neither showing. (See generally Resp.) Accordingly, the

8

court DENIES his motion (Dkt. # 181).

9

Dated this 13th day of April, 2017.

10
11

A

12

JAMES L. ROBART
United States District Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
1

22

“Courts in this circuit have an obligation to give a liberal construction to the filings of
pro se litigants.” Blaisdell v. Frappiea, 729 F.3d 1237, 1241 (9th Cir. 2013).

ORDER - 2