Blakeney v. Karr et al

Filing 56

ORDER denying 54 Motion for Reconsideration by Judge Benjamin H Settle.(TG; cc mailed to plaintiff)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

5

6 OLUJIMI AWABH BLAKENEY,
7

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. C13-5076 BHS
ORDER DENYING MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION

8 v.
9 SUSAN KARR, et al.,
10
11
12
13
14

Defendants.
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Olujimi Awabh Blakeney’s
(“Blakeney”) motion for reconsideration of this Court’s order adopting the Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”) of the Honorable Karen L. Strombom, United States
Magistrate Judge (Dkt. 47). Dkt. 54.

15
16
17
18
19
20
21

I.

PROCEDURAL & FACTUAL BACKGROUND

On August 6, 2013, Defendants filed their Motion for Summary Judgment which
was noted for September 6, 2013. Dkt. 35. On August 23, 2013, Blakeney filed a Motion
for Extension of Time until September 23, 2013 to respond. Dkt. 38. On September 4,
2013, Blakeney’s request was granted. Dkt. 39. On September 23, 2013, Blakeney filed a
second motion for extension of time. Dkt. 40. On October 4, 2013, by separate order,
Magistrate Judge Karen Strombom, denied Blakeney’s second motion to extend his

22

ORDER - 1

1 deadline to respond to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Dkt. 46. On
2 September 23, 2013, Blakeney filed motions to join additional claims (Dkt. 42) and to
3 join additional defendants (Dkt. 43).
4

On October 4, 2013, Judge Strombom issued an R&R granting Defendants’

5 motion for summary judgment because Blakeney failed to exhaust his administrative
6 remedies. Dkt. 47. The Court did not reach Defendant’ alternative substantive grounds
7 for dismissal, finding that once it determined that a suit filed by a prisoner must be
8 dismissed for failure to exhaust, a district court lacks discretion to resolve those claims on
9 the merits. Accordingly, Blakeney’s motions to join claims and parties (Dkts. 42 and 43)
10 were denied as moot.
11

On October 21, 2013, Blakeney filed objections to Judge Strombom’s R&R. Dkt.

12 48. On the same day, he also filed a response to Defendants’ motion for summary
13 judgment and a cross-motion for summary judgment. Dkt. 49. On October 24, 2013,
14 Defendants filed a reply to Blakeney’s objections and a motion to strike his response to
15 Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Dkt. 50.
16

On November 13, 2013, the Court adopted Judge Strombom’s R&R. Dkt. 52. On

17 November 25, 2013, Blakeney filed the instant motion for reconsideration. Dkt. 54.
18

II.

19

DISCUSSION

Motions for reconsideration are governed by Local Rule CR 7(h), which

20 provides as follows:
21

Motions for reconsideration are disfavored. The court will ordinarily
deny such motions in the absence of a showing of manifest error in the

22

ORDER - 2

1

prior ruling or a showing of new facts or legal authority which could not
have been brought to its attention earlier with reasonable diligence.

2
Local Rule CR 7(h)(1).
3
Blakeney argues that the Court erred in finding that he offered no reason which
4
would sufficiently justify his delinquent response and motion. Dkt. 54 at 1-2. He states
5
that he offered reasons in his second motion for extension of time while the case was
6
pending before Judge Strombom. Dkt. 54 at 1-2. Although Blakeney did seek a second
7
extension of time on the basis that he allegedly had limited access to the library and it
8
was burdensome to obtain writing materials, he did not supply any further reasoning to
9
this Court as to why he was he submitted a delinquent response and thus the Court found
10
Judge Strombom’s had not abused her discretion in denying Blakeney’s second motion
11
for continuance.
12
Moreover, Judge Strombom’s decision to dismiss the case was based on
13
Blakeney’s failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. Based on a review of the
14
record, this Court found that Judge Strombom’s conclusion that Blakeney failed to
15
exhaust his administrative remedies was correct. Dkt. 52 at 3. Thus, the Court found she
16
properly dismissed his claims without prejudice. Id. Neither Blakeney’s objections to
17
his R&R, nor his motion for reconsideration properly challenged that basis for dismissing
18
his case. 1
19
20
1

Although Blakeney’s objections to the R&R state that his belatedly filed response to
Defendants’ summary judgment motion and cross motion is “meant to complete []his
objection[s],” the Court did not and does not consider those documents, as the Court found Judge
22 Strombom did not abuse her discretion in denying Blakeney’s second motion for a continuance.

21

ORDER - 3

1

Blakeney has not satisfied the burden necessary to grant his motion for

2 reconsideration, as he has failed to show the Court committed a manifest error of law,
3 and he has not provided new facts or legal authority which could not have been brought
4 to its attention earlier with reasonable diligence.
5
6

III.

ORDER

Therefore, it is hereby ordered that Blakeney’s motion for reconsideration (Dkt.

7 54) is DENIED.
8

Dated this 2nd day of January, 2014.

A

9
10

BENJAMIN H. SETTLE
United States District Judge

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

ORDER - 4