Gomes v. The Boeing Company

Filing 12

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 10 Motion for Reconsideration filed as Reply to Response to Motion, signed by Judge James L. Robart. (SWT)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

8
9
10

GREGORY GOMES,
Plaintiff,

11

CASE NO. C17-0864JLR
ORDER

v.
12
13

THE BOEING COMPANY,
Defendant.

14
15

Before the court is Plaintiff Gregory Gomes’s motion for reconsideration of the

16

court’s July 12, 2017, order of dismissal. (Mot. (Dkt. # 10); see also 7/12/17 Order (Dkt.

17

# 7).) Mr. Gomes, who is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, states that

18

“unexpected delimiting illness,” two unexpected foreign business trips, and a misdirected

19

email precluded him from timely responding to the court’s order to show cause. (Mot. at

20

1; see also 6/19/17 Order (ordering Mr. Gomes to show cause why his complaint should

21

not be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to timely file

22

charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”)).) He therefore

ORDER - 1

1

asks the court to consider his response to the order to show cause, which he filed

2

concurrently in the form of a second amended complaint. (Mot. at 1; SAC (Dkt. # 11).)
Mr. Gomes’s proposed second amended complaint contains the same fatal flaw as

3
4

his complaint and his first amended complaint—his untimely EEOC charge forecloses his

5

claim—and the court has repeatedly informed Mr. Gomes of this shortcoming. (See

6

6/19/17 Order at 2-4 (citing Compl. (Dkt. # 4); Right to Sue Letter (Dkt. # 4-1)); 7/12/17

7

Order at 1-2 (citing FAC (Dkt. # 6)); SAC ¶¶ 3, 8.) Because the same deficiency led to

8

the court’s dismissal (see 7/12/17 Order at 1-2), Mr. Gomes’s motion for reconsideration

9

and second amended complaint show neither “manifest error in the prior ruling” nor

10

“new facts or legal authority which could not have been brought to [the court’s] attention

11

earlier with reasonable diligence,” Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 7(h)(1). He is therefore

12

not entitled to reconsideration of the court’s dismissal. See id. Even if the court liberally

13

construes Mr. Gomes’s filing as seeking relief from the judgment under Federal Rule of

14

Civil Procedure 60, see Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9 (1980) (requiring the court to

15

liberally construe pro se filings), Mr. Gomes fails to show that he is entitled to relief

16

because his untimely EEOC charge bars his claim, see generally Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)

17

(providing the grounds for relief from a final judgment). Accordingly, the court DENIES

18

//

19

//

20

//

21

//

22

//

ORDER - 2

1
2

Mr. Gomes’s motion for reconsideration (Dkt. # 10).
Dated this 25th day of July, 2017.

3
4

A

5

JAMES L. ROBART
United States District Judge

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

ORDER - 3