Pacific County Tea Party et al v. Inslee et al
Filing
39
ORDER denying Plaintiff's 38 MOTION for Reconsideration re 37 Judgment by Court filed by James J O'Hagan. Signed by Judge Lauren King.(MW) (cc: Plaintiff via USPS)
Case 2:20-cv-00971-LK Document 39 Filed 07/12/22 Page 1 of 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE
8
9
10
PACIFIC COUNTY TEA PARTY,
11
12
v.
13
Plaintiff,
CASE NO. 20-cv-00971-LK
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION
JAY INSLEE, et al.,
14
Defendants.
15
16
This matter comes before the Court on a motion for reconsideration filed by James
17
O’Hagan. Dkt. No. 38. Mr. O’Hagan seeks reconsideration of the Court’s order adopting Judge
18
Tsuchida’s Report and Recommendation and granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Dkt. No.
19
36.
20
“Motions for reconsideration are disfavored,” and the Court “will ordinarily deny such
21
motions in the absence of a showing of manifest error in the prior ruling or a showing of new facts
22
or legal authority which could not have been brought to its attention earlier with reasonable
23
diligence.” LCR 7(h). Mr. O’Hagan’s motion is not properly before the Court. He is the only
24
signatory to the motion, and he identifies himself below the signature line as “Political Prisoner &
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 1
Case 2:20-cv-00971-LK Document 39 Filed 07/12/22 Page 2 of 3
1
Next Friend James J. O’Hagan, by and for the Pacific County Tea Party.” Dkt. No. 38 at 5. Mr.
2
O’Hagan was a party in his own right, but he voluntarily dismissed his claims and is no longer
3
pursuing any claims on his own behalf. Dkt. No. 15; Dkt. No. 36 at 3 n.3. Nor can he represent or
4
file documents on behalf of Pacific County Tea Party; he is not an attorney. See, e.g., D-Beam Ltd.
5
P’ship v. Roller Derby Skates, Inc., 366 F.3d 972, 974 n.1 (9th Cir. 2004) (emphasizing that
6
pleadings submitted by a non-attorney on behalf of a limited partnership “are not even valid”);
7
Rowland v. California Men’s Colony, Unit II Men’s Advisory Council, 506 U.S. 194, 201–02
8
(1993) (“It has been the law for the better part of two centuries . . . that a corporation may appear
9
in the federal courts only through licensed counsel.”); Her Oceans v. Cmty. Outreach Behav.
10
Servs., Inc., No. 1:21-CV-00198-DCN, 2021 WL 3172914, at *1 (D. Idaho July 27, 2021) (holding
11
that a registered agent of a corporation could not represent it in federal court because the agent was
12
not an attorney). Therefore, his motion for reconsideration is not properly before the Court and
13
must be denied for that reason alone.
14
Even if the Court were to consider the filing, it does not demonstrate manifest error in the
15
Court’s prior order or new facts or legal authority. Instead, the motion reiterates arguments
16
previously submitted to the Court. Compare Dkt. No. 24 with Dkt. No. 38.
17
Despite those shortcomings, the Court also addresses Mr. O’Hagan’s argument that he
18
should be allowed to represent the Pacific Tea Party as its “next friend.” As the Supreme Court
19
has explained, non-attorneys have been allowed to appear on behalf of others as their “next friends”
20
only in narrow, specific circumstances that do not exist in this case. See, e.g., Whitmore v.
21
Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 162–63 (1990) (noting that “next friends” most frequently appear in court
22
on behalf of detained prisoners who are unable to seek relief themselves; in such cases, the
23
purported next friend is required to prove that the real party in interest has a disability and a
24
“significant relationship” with the filing party); 28 U.S.C. § 2242 (allowing next friend
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 2
Case 2:20-cv-00971-LK Document 39 Filed 07/12/22 Page 3 of 3
1
applications for a writ of habeas corpus); Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c)(2) (providing that a “minor or an
2
incompetent person who does not have a duly appointed representative may sue by a next friend”).
3
Mr. O’Hagan does not cite any statute or court rule that would give him next friend status in this
4
lawsuit. And Pacific Tea Party has not asserted any claims or alleged any circumstances that could
5
even potentially grant Mr. O’Hagan next friend status to sue on its behalf. See generally Dkt. Nos.
6
1, 15.
7
Accordingly, the Court DENIES Mr. O’Hagan’s motion for reconsideration. Dkt. No. 38.
8
The Clerk is directed to send uncertified copies of this Order to all counsel of record and
9
10
11
12
13
to any party appearing pro se at said party’s last known address.
Dated this 12th day of July, 2022.
A
Lauren King
United States District Judge
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 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?