Bishop v. Valley Medical Center

Filing 15

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 14 Motion for Reconsideration; advising Plaintiff that no further motions for reconsideration of Court's Order Dismissing Complaint will be considered. Signed by Judge James L. Robart. (SWT) (cc: Plaintiff via USPS)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

8
9
10

DEBRA BISHOP,

CASE NO. C18-0885JLR
Plaintiff,

11

ORDER

v.
12
13

VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER,
Defendant.

14
15

Before the court is pro se Plaintiff Debra Bishop’s letter (Mot. (Dkt. # 14)), which

16

the court liberally construes as a second motion for reconsideration of the court’s order

17

dismissing Ms. Bishop’s complaint (7/2/18 Order (Dkt. # 6)).

18

Ms. Bishop filed her complaint against Defendant Valley Medical Center on June

19

19, 2018. (Compl. (Dkt. # 4).) On July 2, 2018, the court dismissed Ms. Bishop’s

20

complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) with leave to amend within 21 days.

21

(7/2/18 Order at 5.) On July 25, 2018, the court granted Ms. Bishop an additional 14

22

days to file an amended complaint. (7/25/18 Order (Dkt. # 8).) Ms. Bishop never filed

ORDER - 1

1

an amended complaint, and the court dismissed this action without prejudice on August

2

22, 2018. (8/22/18 Order (Dkt. # 9).)

3

On September 24, 2018, Ms. Bishop filed a letter with the court (9/24/18 Mot.

4

(Dkt. # 11)), which the court liberally construed as a motion for reconsideration of its

5

order dismissing Ms. Bishop’s complaint (see 10/10/18 Order (Dkt. # 12)). The court

6

denied Ms. Bishop’s motion because it did not address any of the deficiencies identified

7

in the court’s order of dismissal and could not be construed as an amended complaint.

8

(See 10/10/18 Order at 2.) Ms. Bishop filed the present motion on November 20, 2018.

9

(Mot. at 1.) In it, she again asks the court to “reinstate [her] cas[e].” (Id.)

10

Under the court’s Local Rules, a motion for reconsideration must be filed “within

11

fourteen days after the order to which it relates is filed.” Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR

12

7(h)(2). Failure to comply with this schedule “may be grounds for denial of the motion.”

13

Id. The order to which Ms. Bishop’s motion relates was filed on July 2, 2018. (See

14

7/2/18 Order.) Ms. Bishop’s second motion for reconsideration was filed on November

15

20, 2018, several months after the court’s order. It is therefore untimely under the court’s

16

Local Rules.

17

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

18

will ordinarily be denied unless there is a showing of (a) manifest error in the prior

19

ruling, or (b) new facts or legal authority which could not have been brought to the

20

attention of the court earlier through reasonable diligence. Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR

21

7(h)(1). Ms. Bishop has not shown manifest error in either the court’s order dismissing

22

her case (7/2/18 Order) or the court’s order denying her first motion for reconsideration

ORDER - 2

1

(10/10/18 Order). Nor has she put before the court any new facts or legal authority. (See

2

generally Mot.)

3
4
5

For the foregoing reasons, the court DENIES Ms. Bishop’s motion for
reconsideration (Dkt. # 14).1
Dated this 11th day of December, 2018.

6
7

A

8

The Honorable James L. Robart
U.S. District Court Judge

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

The court advises Ms. Bishop that no further motions for reconsideration of the court’s
July 2, 2018, order dismissing the complaint will be considered, docketed, or reviewed by the
court. The court DIRECTS the Clerk to return any such motions to Ms. Bishop.
1

ORDER - 3