Gotcher v. Aamaco Transmission and Car Care Repair et al

Filing 18

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 17 Motion for Reconsideration signed by U.S. District Judge John C Coughenour. (TH)

Download PDF
THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 9 NORMAN GOTCHER, JR., 10 11 12 Plaintiff, CASE NO. C17-1529-JCC MINUTE ORDER v. AAMACO TRANSMISSON AUTO CAR CARE REPAIR, et al., 13 14 Defendants. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 The following Minute Order is made by direction of the Court, the Honorable John C. Coughenour, United States District Judge: This matter comes before the Court on Defendant’s motion for reconsideration (Dkt. No. 17) of this Court’s order denying Defendant’s motion to appoint counsel (Dkt. No. 2), motion for leave to amend complaint (Dkt. No. 8), second motion for leave to amend complaint (Dkt. No. 11), motion to show cause and correcting complaint (Dkt. No. 12), and the Court’s order dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint (Dkt. No. 14). Having thoroughly considered Plaintiff’s motion and the relevant record, the Court hereby DENIES the motion for the reasons explained herein. Motions for reconsideration are generally disfavored. W.D. Wash. Local Civ. R. 7(h)(1). But reconsideration is appropriate where the moving party seeks reconsideration within 14 days after the order to which it relates is filed, and there is a showing of “manifest error in the prior MINUTE ORDER C17-1529-JCC PAGE - 1 1 ruling or a showing of new facts or legal authority which could not have been brought to [the 2 Court’s] attention earlier with reasonable diligence.” W.D. Wash. Local Civ. R. 7(h)(1),(2). 3 Plaintiff’s motion neither demonstrates that the Court committed manifest error, nor 4 provides new facts or legal authority that would cause the Court to change its ruling. 1 The Court 5 dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice because the complaint did not provide a basis 6 for subject matter jurisdiction. (Dkt. No. 14 at 3.) Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), when a Plaintiff 7 pursues a civil action in forma pauperis the district court “shall dismiss the case at any time if the 8 court determines . . . the action or appeal . . . (i) is frivolous or malicious; [or] (ii) fails to state a 9 claim on which relief may be granted . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)–(ii). A complaint is 10 considered frivolous under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) if it fails to establish subject matter jurisdiction. 11 See Pratt v. Sumner, 807 F.2d 817, 819 (9th Cir. 1987). 12 The Court determined that Plaintiff did not plead adequate facts to demonstrate that the 13 Court had either federal question or diversity jurisdiction. (Dkt. No. 2–3.) 2 Plaintiff has not 14 provided new facts that would allow the Court to find jurisdiction. Plaintiff brings a 42 15 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against private defendants, asserting that they violated his rights under the 16 First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution. (Dkt. No. 17 at 3–11.) Plaintiff 17 has not plead facts that demonstrate the private defendants took joint action with a state actor. 18 See Kirtley v. Rainey, 326 F.3d 1088, 1092 (9th Cir. 2003) (“While generally not applicable to 19 private parties, a § 1983 action can lie against a private party when he is a willful participant in 20 joint action with the State or its agents.”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 21 22 23 24 25 1 Plaintiff’s motion is also untimely. The Court filed its order dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint on November 2, 2017. (Dkt. No. 14.) Plaintiff filed his motion on November 22, 2017, which is almost a week after the 14-day deadline. (Dkt. No. 17.) The Court realizes that Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and currently incarcerated, both of which make it difficult for him to comply with procedural rules. Were there not substantive deficiencies with Plaintiff’s complaint, the Court would hesitate to deny the motion solely on procedural grounds. 2 26 For the same reasons the Court would not have federal question jurisdiction it would not have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(3). MINUTE ORDER C17-1529-JCC PAGE - 2 1 Plaintiff provides only conclusory allegations that defendants acted under color of state law. See 2 Price v. State of Hawaii, 939 F.2d 702, 707–08 (9th Cir. 1991) (noting that conclusory 3 allegations unsupported by facts are insufficient to state a 1983 action). 3 Nor has Plaintiff 4 provided facts that demonstrate the Court has diversity jurisdiction. Based on the allegations in 5 the complaint and motion to reconsider all of the parties to the lawsuit appear to be citizens of 6 Washington. (Dkt. Nos. 6, 17.) 7 For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Dkt. No. 17) is 8 DENIED. The Clerk is DIRECTED to mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff at: Norman Gotcher 9 Jr., DOC #634076, Washington Corrections Center, PO Box 900, Shelton, WA 98584. 10 DATED this 28th day of November 2017. 11 William M. McCool Clerk of Court 12 s/Tomas Hernandez Deputy Clerk 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 3 For the same reasons the Court would not have subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claim, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted. That provides a separate basis for dismissal of his complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). MINUTE ORDER C17-1529-JCC PAGE - 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?