Marshall v. Washington State Bar Association et al

Filing 86

ORDER denying 84 Motion to Amend Judgment by Samuel Conti.(TD)

1
2
3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

5

AT SEATTLE

6
7

BRADLEY MARSHALL,
Plaintiff,

8

For the Western District of Washington

United States District Court

9
10
11
12

v.
WASHINGTON STATE BAR ASSOCIATION,
et al.,
Defendants.

13
14

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CV-11-5319 SC
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND
THE JUDGMENT

Plaintiff filed this action challenging his disbarment by the

15

Washington Supreme Court.

16

Defendants' motions for judgment on the pleadings on Rooker-Feldman

17

and res judicata grounds and entered judgment in their favor.

18

Nos. 79 ("May 23 Order"), 81.

19

alter or amend the judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

20

Procedure 59(e).

21

herein, the Motion is DENIED.

22

On May 23, 2012, the Court granted

ECF

Plaintiff now moves the Court to

ECF No. 84 ("Mot.").

For the reasons described

"Under Rule 59(e), it is appropriate to alter or amend a

23

judgment if '(1) the district court is presented with newly

24

discovered evidence, (2) the district court committed clear error

25

or made an initial decision that was manifestly unjust, or (3)

26

there is an intervening change in controlling law.'"

27

Ins. Co. v. Spectrum Worldwide, Inc., 555 F.3d 772, 779 (9th Cir.

28

2009) (quoting Zimmerman v. City of Oakland, 255 F.3d 734,

United Nat'l

1

740 (9th Cir. 2001)).

2

newly-discovered evidence, or that the Court committed clear error

3

or made an initial decision that was manifestly unjust, or that

4

there was an intervening change in controlling law.

5

of the arguments set forth in Plaintiff's Motion give the Court

6

cause to doubt the reasoning of its May 24 Order.

7

Here, Plaintiff has not shown that there is

In short, none

Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion is DENIED.

8

United States District Court

For the Western District of Washington

9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

10
11
12

Dated:

June 8, 2012
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2