Dahlstrom et al v. State of Washington et al

Filing 50

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 48 Motion to Amend Judgment or Alter Judgment under Rule 59 or Rule 60 signed by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (TH)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

_________________________________

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
STATE OF WASHINGTON, et al.,
)
)
Defendants. )
_________________________________ )
ROSALBA MAYORGA,

Case No. C17-0934RSL
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
POST-JUDGMENT RELIEF

On December 17, 2018, the Court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment and

14

entered judgment in their favor. Dkt. # 46. Plaintiff filed a timely motion to alter or amend the

15

judgment under Rule 59(e) and/or for relief from the judgment under Rule 60.

16

Although plaintiff has identified an error in the Court’s prior order – the Court incorrectly

17

stated that plaintiff began working as a social worker for DSHS in 2009, rather than in 1990 –

18

that error does not require an alteration or amendment of the judgment under Rule 59(e).

19

Plaintiff has not shown any substantive error in the prior ruling or presented new facts or legal

20

authority that could not have been brought to the Court’s attention with reasonable diligence.

21

LCR 7(h)(1). Rather, plaintiff argues that the Court erred when it credited defendants’ version of

22

the facts over contrary allegations in the Second Amended Complaint. Dkt. # 48 at 5. The

23

allegations of the complaint are not evidence, however. After reviewing plaintiff’s declaration

24

and the evidence submitted by defendants, the Court found that plaintiff had failed to present

25

evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that defendants acted with discriminatory or

26
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
POST-JUDGMENT RELIEF

1
2

retaliatory intent. Plaintiff has not shown manifest error in that ruling.
To the extent plaintiff seeks to have the judgment vacated under Rule 60, she has not

3

identified the grounds for such relief. Plaintiff has not shown mistake, newly discovered

4

evidence, misconduct by defendants, or any other reason justifying relief from the judgment

5

other than the fact that she disagrees with it. Nor does she argue that the judgment is void or has

6

been satisfied. Relief is not available under Rule 60.

7
8

For all of the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion for post-judgment relief is DENIED.

9
10

Dated this 25th day of February, 2019.

A
Robert S. Lasnik

11

United States District Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
POST-JUDGMENT RELIEF

-2-