Slaughter v. Glebe et al
ORDER by Judge Benjamin H. Settle denying 141 Motion for Telephonic Hearing; denying 142 Motion for Reconsideration. Plaintiff shall not file any more motions for reconsideration relating to his motion for preliminary injunction (Dkt. 128). **3 PAGE(S), PRINT ALL**(Ossie Slaughter, Prisoner ID: 827869)(TG)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
OSSIE LEE SLAUGHTER,
PAT GLEBE, et al.,
CASE NO. C15-5484BHS
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
MOTION FOR TELEPHONIC
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Ossie Lee Slaughter’s
14 (“Slaughter”) motion for reconsideration of the Court’s order denying a preliminary
15 injunction. Dkt. 142. Also before the Court is Slaughter’s motion for a telephonic hearing
16 Dkt. 141.
On January 24, 2017, Slaughter filed a motion for preliminary injunction. Dkt.
18 128. On February 9, 2017, Judge Creatura issued a report and recommendation (“R&R”)
19 that the Court deny a preliminary injunction. Dkt. 133. On February 21, 2017, the Court
20 adopted the R&R. Dkt. 134. On February 28, 2017, Slaughter filed objections to the R&R
21 and filed a motion for reconsideration on the Courts’ order adopting the R&R. Dkts. 135,
22 136. On March 3, 2017, the Court vacated its previous order because it had erroneously
ORDER - 1
1 adopted the R&R before it was ripe. Dkt. 138. The Court then considered Slaughter’s
2 objections and issued a new order, once again adopting the R&R. Id. The Court also
3 denied Slaughter’s motion for reconsideration on the issue of the preliminary injunction.
On March 16, 2017, Slaughter again moved for reconsideration on his motion for
6 preliminary injunction. Dkt. 142. Slaughter also requested a telephonic hearing on the
7 motion. Dkt. 141. On March 24, 2017, Defendants responded to the motion for a
8 telephonic hearing. Dkt. 147.
Motions for reconsideration are governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60
10 and Local Rules, W.D. Wash. LCR 7(h). LCR 7(h) provides:
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.
The Ninth Circuit has described reconsideration as an “extraordinary remedy, to
be used sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Kona
Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting 12 James
Wm. Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 59.30 (3d ed. 2000)). “[A] motion for
reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the
district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if
there is an intervening change in the controlling law.” Id. (quoting 389 Orange Street
Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999)).
ORDER - 2
Slaughter fails to meet his burden on reconsideration. He fails to show any
2 manifest error of law or submit new evidence that could not have been brought to the
3 Court’s attention earlier. Local Rules, W.D. Wash. LCR 7(h)(2). Slaughter has once
4 again failed to raise any issues or arguments for reconsideration that were not argued in
5 his original motion for preliminary injunction, his objections to the R&R, or his first
6 motion for reconsideration. Therefore, Slaughter’s motion for reconsideration (Dkt. 142)
7 is DENIED. Slaughter’s motion for a telephonic hearing (Dkt. 141) on the preliminary
8 injunction issue is also DENIED. Additionally, the Court instructs that Slaughter shall
9 not file any more motions for reconsideration relating to his motion for preliminary
10 injunction (Dkt. 128).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 24th day of April, 2017.
BENJAMIN H. SETTLE
United States District Judge
ORDER - 3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?