Trevino et al v. Quigley et al

Filing 8

ORDER denying plaintiffs' 7 Motion for Reconsideration, signed by Judge James L. Robart. (SWT) (cc: Plaintiffs via USPS)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

8
9
10

FRANCIS ANTHONY TREVINO,
et al.,

11
Plaintiffs,
12
13

CASE NO. C18-0487JLR
ORDER DENYING MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION

v.
KEVIN W. QUIGLEY, et al.,

14

Defendants.

15
Before the court is pro se Plaintiffs Francis Anthony Trevino and Mark Newton
16
Kelly’s (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) motion for reconsideration of the court’s May 8, 2018,
17
order dismissing Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendants Spokane County Superior Court
18
Judge Gregory D. Sypolt; Spokane County Superior Court Judge James M. Murphy;
19
Washington State Supreme Court Clerk Erin L. Lennon; and Washington State Supreme
20
Court Clerk Susan L. Carlson (collectively, “Judicial Defendants”). (MFR (Dkt. # 7); see
21
also 5/8/18 Order (Dkt. # 6).) In that order, the court concluded that Plaintiffs had not
22

ORDER - 1

1

demonstrated the court’s subject matter jurisdiction over Judicial Defendants because

2

those defendants enjoyed judicial immunity and quasi-judicial immunity. (See 5/8/18

3

Order at 1-2.) For the reasons set forth below, the court denies Plaintiffs’ motion for

4

reconsideration.

5

Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7(h)(1), motions for reconsideration are disfavored,

6

and the court will ordinarily deny such motions unless the moving party shows (a)

7

manifest error in the prior ruling, or (b) new facts or legal authority that could not have

8

been brought to the attention of the court earlier through reasonable diligence. Local

9

Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 7(h)(1). Furthermore, a motion for reconsideration “shall be

10

filed within fourteen days after the order to which it relates is filed.” Id. LCR 7(h)(2)

11

(“Failure to comply with this subsection may be grounds for denial of the motion.”).
Plaintiffs do not meet any of the requirements for reconsideration of the court’s

12
13

May 8, 2018, order. First, they bring their motion nearly a month after the order to which

14

it relates, and as such, the motion is untimely. (See MFR at 18 (showing a postmark of

15

June 5, 2018, and the court’s receipt of the motion on June 11, 2018); 5/8/18 Order at 3);

16

Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 7(h)(2). Second, they have not shown manifest error in

17

the court’s prior ruling or new facts or legal authority that they could not have brought to

18

the court’s attention earlier though reasonable diligence. See Local Rules W.D. Wash.

19

LCR 7(h)(1); (MFR at 1-16.) Indeed, Plaintiffs identify no purported error or new legal

20

authority. (See id.) And to the extent any of the legal authority they provide is newly

21

before the court, they do not explain why they could not have raised that authority earlier.

22

//

ORDER - 2

1

(See id.) For these reasons, the court DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration

2

(Dkt. # 7).

3

Dated this 15th day of June, 2018.

4
5

A

6

JAMES L. ROBART
United States District Judge

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

ORDER - 3