Mohsen v. Ingram

Filing 23

ORDER denying Petitioner's 22 Motion for Reconsideration signed by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (TH) (cc: Petitioner via first class mail)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9

AMR MOHSEN,

Case No. C17-817RSL

10
Plaintiff,

11
12
13
14
15

v.

ORDER DENYING MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION

CHARLES INGRAM,
Defendant.
This matter comes before the Court on petitioner Amr Mohsen’s motion for

16 reconsideration. Dkt. # 22. Petitioner initially filed this action under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 seeking
17 an order directing the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) to file a compassionate-release motion on his
18 behalf and a declaration that two BOP program statements are contrary to law. Dkt. # 3. The
19 Court approved and adopted a Report and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge Mary Alice
20 Theiler and dismissed the petition. Dkt. # 20. Petitioner filed this motion for reconsideration,
21 Dkt. # 22, asserting that the Court’s order includes several legal and factual errors.
22

Motions for reconsideration are disfavored in this district and will be granted only on a

23 “showing of manifest error in the prior ruling” or “new facts or legal authority which could not
24 have been brought to [the Court’s] attention earlier with reasonable diligence.” LCR 7(h)(1).
25 Petitioner also cites Federal Civil Rule 60, which provides for relief from a judgment due to
26 mistake or inadvertence. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1). Petitioner shows no manifest error or mistake
27 in the Court’s ruling, nor does he cite new facts or authority that undermine the Court’s previous
28 conclusions. The motion for reconsideration, Dkt. # 22, is DENIED.
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 1

1

DATED this 27th day of March, 2018.

2
3
4

A
Robert S. Lasnik

5

United States District Judge

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 2