Rasmussen v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 20

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 19 AND DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE OPENING BRIEF signed by Judge Karen L. Strombom. Plaintiff's Brief due by 4/2/2015, Defendant's Responsive Brief due by 4/30/2015 and Plaintiff's Reply Brief due by 5/13/2015. (MET) cc: plaintiff

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

4
5
6

MELANIE RASMUSSEN,
Case No. 3:14-cv-05007-RJB-KLS

7
8
9

Plaintiff,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
AND DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE
OPENING BRIEF

10
Defendant.

11
12

This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff’s filing of her response (see Dkt. 19) to

13
the Court’s order denying her motion to request appointment of counsel (see Dkt. 18). In that
14
15

order, the Court found that while plaintiff asserts she could not proceed in prosecuting her case

16

without the appointment of legal counsel, because she is unable to write her own opening brief,

17

the two motions she had filed in this case revealed an adequate ability to articulate her claims on

18

her own behalf. Further, the Court found plaintiff had failed to demonstrate either a likelihood of

19
20

success on the merits or shown that the issues this case presents are too complex, such that she
will not be able to articulate her claims pro se.

21
22
23

Plaintiff was directed to inform the Court as to whether she again wanted to withdraw her
complaint by filing a new motion to that effect given that her request for appointment of counsel

24

had been denied, or whether she instead wished to continue prosecuting her case, in which event

25

the Court shall set a new briefing schedule. Rather than choosing one of these courses of action,

26

however, plaintiff responded to the Court’s order by stating that she both wanted to proceed with
ORDER - 1

1

this case and file a new request for appointment of legal counsel, essentially arguing she met all

2

of the requirements for being appointed counsel at government expense outlined above.

3
4

Although not specifically characterized as such, plaintiff’s response shall be treated as a
motion for reconsideration. Motions for reconsideration “are disfavored,” and such motions will

5
ordinarily be denied “in the absence of a showing of manifest error in the prior ruling or a
6
7

showing of new facts or legal authority which could not have been brought to its attention earlier

8

with reasonable diligence.” Local Rule CR 7(h)(1). Neither showing has been made here. As

9

such, plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (see Dkt. 19) hereby is DENIED.

10
11
12

Given that plaintiff has indicated she wants to proceed with her case, she shall have until
no later than April 2, 2015, to file her Opening Brief in this matter. Defendant’s Responsive
Brief shall be due no later than April 30, 2015. Plaintiff’s Reply Brief, if any, shall be due no

13
later than May 13, 2015. Plaintiff should be aware that failure to file her Opening Brief by
14
15
16
17

the above date shall be deemed a failure to prosecute, resulting in a recommendation that
this matter be dismissed on that basis.
DATED this 5th day of March, 2015.

18

A

19
20

Karen L. Strombom
United States Magistrate Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
ORDER - 2