Cruze v. Warner et al

Filing 42

ORDER denying 41 Motion for Reconsideration signed by Judge J Richard Creatura.(MET) cc: plaintiff

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

8
9
10

SCHAWN JAMES CRUZE,

11
12
13

Plaintiff,
v.
BERNIE WARNER, et al.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

ORDER DENYING
PLAINTIFF’MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION

Defendants.

14
15

CASE NO. C13-5220 BHS-JRC

This 42 U.S.C. §1983 civil rights matter has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate
Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(A) and (B) and Local Magistrate Judges Rules MJR 1,
MJR 3, and MJR 4.
Plaintiff sought leave to amend his complaint to name supervisory personnel based on the
actions of their subordinates (ECF No. 29). The Court denied the motion because the theory of
respondeat superior does not support liability against a supervisor (id.). Plaintiff asks the Court
to reconsider an order denying leave to amend the complaint (ECF No. 41).
In his motion for reconsideration, plaintiff cites to two cases where the defendants were
cities (ECF No. 41). Cities are considered persons under the civil rights act, but to hold a

24
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION - 1

1 municipality liable, plaintiff must show that a custom or policy of the municipality played a role
2 in the violation of his rights. City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 385 (1989). Plaintiff’s
3 reliance on municipality liability cases in this action is misplaced because this action does not
4 involve a city as a defendant.
5

Motions for reconsideration are disfavored under this Court’s Local Rules. See, Local

6 Rule 7(h) which states:
7
8

Standard. Motions for reconsideration are disfavored. The court will ordinarily
deny such motions in the absence of a showing of manifest error in the prior
ruling or a showing of new facts or legal authority which could not have been
brought to its attention earlier with reasonable diligence.

9
The Court has reviewed the pleadings and finds no error in its prior ruling. The Court
10
DENIES plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration.
11
Dated this 24th day of July, 2013.
12
13
14

A

15

J. Richard Creatura
United States Magistrate Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION - 2