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

Filing 214

ORDER denying non-party Rick Satcher's 212 Motion for Reconsideration of the court's order denying him both intervention as of right and permissive intervention in this lawsuit. Signed by Judge James L. Robart. (PM) cc: Rick Satcher via first class mail

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.

CASE NO. C17-0141JLR
ORDER DENYING MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION

12
13

DONALD J. TRUMP, et al.,
Defendants.

14
15

Before the court is non-party Rick Satcher’s motion. (Mot. (Dkt. # 212).) Mr.

16

Satcher is appearing pro se, and the court liberally construes his motion as a motion for

17

reconsideration of the court’s order denying him both intervention as of right and

18

permissive intervention in this lawsuit. 1 (See Order (Dkt. # 174).) Having considered the

19

motion, the relevant portions of the record, and the applicable law, the court DENIES Mr.

20

Satcher’s motion for reconsideration.

21
1

22

The court liberally construes the pleadings of pro se litigants. See Brazil v. U.S. Dep’t
of Navy, 66 F.3d 193, 199 (9th Cir. 1995).

ORDER - 1

1

Pursuant to the Western District of Washington’s Local Civil Rules, a “motion

2

[for reconsideration] shall be filed within fourteen days after the order to which it relates

3

is filed.” Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 7(h)(2). The court filed its order denying Mr.

4

Satcher’s motion to intervene on March 30, 2017. (See Order.) Accordingly, Mr.

5

Satcher’s motion for reconsideration is untimely, and the court DENIES it on this ground.

6

See Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 7(h)(2) (“Failure to comply with this subsection may

7

be grounds for denial of the motion.”).

8
9

In addition, “[m]otions for reconsideration are disfavored,” and the court “will
ordinarily deny such motions in the absence of a showing of manifest error in the prior

10

ruling or a showing of new facts or legal authority which could not have been brought to

11

its attention earlier with reasonable diligence.” Id., LCR 7(h)(1). Mr. Satcher makes no

12

such showing. (See generally Mot.) The court concludes, therefore, that—in addition to

13

being untimely—Mr. Satcher’s motion lacks merits. Thus, the court DENIES Mr.

14

Satcher’s motion for reconsideration on this substantive ground as well (Dkt. # 212).

15

Dated this 26th day of February, 2018.

16
17

A

18

JAMES L. ROBART
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22

ORDER - 2