Peden v. Catholic Community Services of Western Washington, et al

Filing 13

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 12 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Ricardo S Martinez. (PM) cc: plaintiff at 1425 Broadway, #232, Seattle, WA 98122 via first class mail.

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

5
6
7

Case No. C17-1610 RSM

CRAIG PEDEN,

8

Plaintiff,

9
10

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

v.

11
12

CATHOLIC COMMUNITY SERVICES OF
WESTERN WASHINGTON, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
15
16

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration. Dkt.
#12. Pro Se Plaintiff filed his initial Complaint on October 30, 2017. Dkt. #3. At the same time,

17
18

Plaintiff filed an Emergency Motion for Injunction, which the Court construed as a Motion for

19

Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”), and ultimately denied. Dkts. #4 and #5. Plaintiff alleged

20

in his initial Complaint that Catholic Charities agreed to pay his rent for October through the end

21

of his lease in December 2017. Dkt. #3. He also appeared to allege some type of retaliation and

22

discrimination, although he did not allege that he is a member of any protected class, nor did he

23
24
25

provide the details of such allegations. See id. The circumstances surrounding Plaintiff’s
allegations and request were not apparent from the initial Complaint or the motion itself.

26

On October 31, 2017, the Court directed Plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint to cure

27

certain deficiencies. Dkt. #6. Plaintiff filed his Amended Complaint on November 21, 2017.

28

ORDER - 1

1

Dkt. #7. Plaintiff named five new Defendants in the Amended Complaint, and appeared to

2

abandon his prior legal claims. See Dkt. #7 at 2-4. Instead, he raised allegations of federal Due

3

Process and Civil Rights violations. Dkt. #7 at 3. He also appeared to raise allegations of federal

4

housing violations.

Id.

Plaintiff made general averments of harassment, defamation,

5

stigmatization, and discrimination on the basis that he is a divorced, single, bisexual male with
6
7

AIDS, but no specifics were provided. Id.at 6. His allegations appeared to cover a time period

8

between 2013 and 2017. Id. Because Mr. Peden failed to explain how each of the Defendants

9

had violated any federal law, and failed to explain why some of his actions were not barred by

10

the applicable statutes of limitations, the Court directed Mr. Peden to file a Second Amended

11

Complaint. Dkt. #8. Mr. Peden did not comply with that Order. Instead, on February 2, 2018,
12
13

Mr. Peden filed a second Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Injunction and a Motion

14

to Appoint Counsel. Dkts. #9 and #10.

15
16

On February 5, 2018, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for TRO and dismissed his case.
Dkt. #11. The Court found that, as with Mr. Peden’s previous filings, the motion suffered from

17
18

numerous deficiencies, including that the legal bases of the motion were unclear, it did not appear

19

that the motion had been served on any of the named Defendants, and Plaintiff failed to include

20

any legal argument in support of his motion. Id.

21
22

Plaintiff has now moved for reconsideration, asserting that the Court should grant his
motion for TRO “if for no other reason than the status within the protected class demands scrutiny

23
24

of the protected’s [sic] interest.” Dkt. #12 at ¶ 2. He then speaks at length about a case he

25

previously brought in this Court, Peden v. Murray, C14-0499JLR, that was dismissed under 28

26

U.S.C. § 1915(e). Id. at ¶ ¶ 4-6. Plaintiff also states that all Orders from this Court that are being

27
28

ORDER - 2

1
2

mailed to him must be announced by telephone and/or text because his mailbox has been
compromised by people wishing to harm him. Dkt. #12 at ¶ 1.

3

“Motions for reconsideration are disfavored. The court will ordinarily deny such motions

4

in the absence of a showing of manifest error in the prior ruling or a showing of new facts or

5

legal authority which could not have been brought to its attention earlier with reasonable
6
7

diligence.” LCrR 12(b)(10). The Court is unable to discern from the instant motion, what errors

8

Plaintiff alleges in the Court’s Order dismissing his case. Plaintiff does not present a single legal

9

authority in support of his motion, nor does he actually reference any specific portion of the

10

Court’s prior Order. Instead, he focuses the bulk of his motion on a four-year-old case that did

11

not proceed before the Undersigned. Further, that case (Peden v. Murray) was never highlighted
12
13

in any pleadings before the Court in this current action. As a result, nothing presented by Plaintiff

14

in the instant motion reflects a clear error in the Court’s prior Order, or persuades the Court that

15

it made any error in reaching its decision.

16

Accordingly, the Court hereby finds and ORDERS that Plaintiff’s Motion for

17
18
19
20
21

Reconsideration (Dkt. #12) is DENIED.
The Clerk shall send a copy of this Order to Mr. Peden at 1425 Broadway, #232, Seattle,
WA 98122.
DATED this 22nd day of February 2018.

22

A

23
24

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

25
26
27
28

ORDER - 3