Karkunov v. Smith et al

Filing 8

ORDER denying 7 Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration; signed by Judge Ronald B. Leighton.(DN) Modified on 6/22/2015 (DN). (cc to pltf)

1

HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON

2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

7
8

ALBERT KARKUNOV,

CASE NO. C15-5231 RBL

9
Plaintiff,
10

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

v.
11
JULIEANN C SMITH,
12
Defendant.
13
14

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff Karkunov’s Motion for Reconsideration

15 of the Court’s Order Denying his Motion for a TRO [Dkt. #7].
16

The WSP and DOC currently hold several boxes of legal files that Karkunov believes are

17 essential to his prospective Civil Rights Claim and Habeas Petition. These boxes are scheduled
18 for imminent destruction. Karkunov filed a Motion for a TRO under FRCP 65(b) [Dkt. #1] in an
19 effort to preserve them. Karkunov did not file an actual complaint.
20

This court referred Karkunov’s Motion to Magistrate Judge Creatura. The Magistrate

21 recommended the court dismiss Karkunov’s claim without prejudice, due to the following
22 procedural defects [Dkt. #3]:
23

1. Karkunov did not file an actual complaint; he filed only a motion.

24
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION - 1

1
2

2. Karkunov has not paid a filing fee or filed an application to proceed in forma
pauperis.

3

3. Karkunov did not sign his motion.

4

This court adopted the Magistrate Judge’s recommendations, and dismissed the case.

5 However, Karkunov’s objections to the recommendation were delayed in the mail, and so this
6 Court issued its order before receiving or reviewing the objections. The Court has now reviewed
7 these objections, and the prior ruling stands.
8

Motions for reconsideration are disfavored, and should generally only be granted when

9 the outcome after reconsideration might be different than the initial decision:
10
11

(1) 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.

12
LCR 7(h) (emphasis added)
13
Karkunov ‘s objections to the R and R do not address, much less cure the procedural
14
defects that led to the dismissal of this case.
15
Most critically, Karkunov has failed to invoke this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction.
16
Karunov claims that he “understood that [he] could bring [his] action in the U.S. District Court
17
for the Western District of Washington if one or more of the named defendants is located within
18
[that] district.” [Dkt. #5]. This may address personal jurisdiction over the defendants, but it does
19
not address the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction. Karkunov sought a TRO under the Federal
20
Rules, but citing them does not give the court jurisdiction over the underlying dispute.
21
Furthermore, even if Rule 65 applied, Karkunov must demonstrate that he is entitled to
22
relief based on “specific facts in an affidavit or verified complaint.” FRCP 65(b)(1)(A). But
23
24
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION - 2

1 Karkunov has not filed any complaint, much less a verified one demonstrating a right to relief in
2 this Court.
3

The Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.

4
5

Dated this 22nd day of June, 2015.

7

A

8

Ronald B. Leighton
United States District Judge

6

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION - 3