Mayes v. Amazon et al

Filing 96

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 91 Motion for Reconsideration of this Court's Order denying Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis (Dkt. No. 90 ). Signed by Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (PM) cc: cc 9th Circuit ad hoc via ECF

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

8
9
10

MARK MAYES,
Plaintiff,

11
12
13
14

CASE NO. C18-176 MJP
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION

v.
AMAZON.COM.DEDC LLC,
Defendant.

15
16

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Dkt.

17

No. 91) of this Court’s Order denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis

18

(Dkt. No. 90). The Court DENIES the motion.

19

Under Local Rule 7(h), “[m]otions for reconsideration are disfavored.” LR 7(h). “The

20

court will ordinarily deny such motions in the absence of a showing of manifest error in the prior

21

ruling or a showing of new facts or legal authority which could not have been brought to its

22

attention earlier with reasonable diligence.” Id.; see also Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos

23

Pharma, 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (finding a motion for reconsideration warranted only

24

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 1

1

when a district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or

2

when there is an intervening change in the controlling law).

3

Plaintiff argues that he did not have a “fair attempt at justice” because his previous

4

counsel withdrew and denying him in forma pauperis status would render an unfair economic

5

hardship. (Dkt. No. 91.) He also argues Amazon improperly denied him Electronically Stored

6

Information that he needed in order to support his claims. (Id.) Plaintiff is reiterating arguments

7

already made and rejected by this Court, and he presents no new angle, evidence, or legal

8

support. The Court previously denied Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Dkt. No.

9

39), and in its Order denying Plaintiff Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis, this Court noted that

10

Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment dealt exclusively with discovery issues that were

11

previously decided by the Court. (Dkt. No. 71.)

12

in the prior ruling or . . . new facts or legal authority which could not have been brought to [the

13

Court’s] attention earlier with reasonable diligence,” reconsideration is not appropriate. LR 7(h).

14

Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.

Because Plaintiff fails to show “manifest error

15
16

The clerk is ordered to provide copies of this order to all counsel.

17

Dated June 18, 2019.

18
19
20

A
Marsha J. Pechman
United States District Judge

21
22
23
24

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 2