Hayes v. State of Washington, Department of Corrections et al

Filing 268

ORDER denying 266 Motion for Reconsideration of the 264 Order on the Motion for Leave to File, signed by Magistrate Judge David W. Christel.**2 PAGE(S), PRINT ALL**(Donald Hayes, Prisoner ID: 766385)(CMG)

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

8
9
10

DONALD C HAYES,

11

Plaintiff,

13

ORDER

v.

12

CASE NO. 3:16-CV-05095-BHS-DWC

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
et al.,

14
Defendants.
15
16

The District Court has referred this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action filed by Plaintiff Donald C.

17 Hayes to United States Magistrate Judge David W. Christel. Before the Court is Plaintiff’s
18 Motion for Reconsideration and Clarification to Strike Pursuant to LCR 7(g)(2). Dkt. 266.
19

Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the Court’s Order denying his request to file a surreply.

20 See id.; Dkt. 264. On December 21, 2017, the Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion to file a surreply
21 because surreplies are limited to requests to strike material contained in or attached to a reply
22 brief. Dkt. 264. Plaintiff now seeks reconsideration of the Order because he does want the Court
23 to strike materials that fail to raise a genuine issue of material fact. Dkt. 266.
24

ORDER - 1

1

Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7(h), motions for reconsideration are disfavored and will be

2 denied absent a showing of manifest error or a showing of new facts or legal authority which
3 could not have been presented earlier with reasonable diligence. Here, Plaintiff fails to show a
4 manifest error in the Court’s prior ruling or new facts or legal authority which could not have
5 been presented earlier. Plaintiff now asserts he wants evidence in Defendants’ Reply (Dkt. 259)
6 struck because it does not raise a genuine issue of material fact. Defendants’ Reply, however,
7 does not contain new evidence. Therefore, there is no evidence attached the Reply which can be
8 struck. Further, the Court declines to strike evidence merely because Plaintiff does not believe
9 the evidence creates a genuine issue of material fact regarding the allegations raised in the Fourth
10 Amended Complaint.
11

As Plaintiff has not met the standard outlined in Local Civil Rule 7(h), the Motion is

12 denied.
13

Dated this 18th day of January, 2018.

A

14
15

David W. Christel
United States Magistrate Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

ORDER - 2