Stockmyer v. Fetroe et al

Filing 55

ORDER denying 54 Motion for Reconsideration signed by Judge Benjamin H. Settle.**3 PAGE(S), PRINT ALL**(Donald Stockmyer, Prisoner ID: 217862)(TG)

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

6
7
8

DONALD STOCKMYER,
Plaintiff,

9
10

v.

CASE NO. C16-5614 BHS
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION

DALE FETROE, et al.,

11

Defendants.

12
13
14
15
16
17
18

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s filing on October 16, 2017,
which the Court will construe as a motion for reconsideration. Dkt. 54.
Motions for reconsideration are governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60
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.

19
The Ninth Circuit has described reconsideration as an “extraordinary remedy, to
20
be used sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Kona
21
Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting 12 James
22

ORDER - 1

1

Wm. Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 59.30[4] (3d ed. 2000)). “[A] motion for

2

reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the

3

district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if

4

there is an intervening change in the controlling law.” Id. (quoting 389 Orange Street

5

Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999)).

6

Plaintiff ascribes three potential errors to the Court’s previous order. First,

7

Plaintiff argues that it would have been pointless for him to exhaust the applicable

8

grievance response in regards to his request for additional bed “mats” because numerous

9

other inmates have attempted to grieve the withholding of additional “mats” to no avail.

10

However, Plaintiff’s claims regarding the mat are predicated on the allegations of special

11

circumstances that apply to his own individual need for additional “mats.” Other inmates

12

may have failed to obtain “mats” in the past, but that does not excuse Plaintiff for failing

13

to seek additional “mats” through the applicable grievance process in light of his own

14

allegedly unique health requirements. Accordingly, even if Plaintiff could show that he

15

was lawfully entitled to additional “mats” for health reasons, the law would still render

16

the Court powerless to hear his claim in light of his failure to exhaust available grievance

17

procedures.

18

Second, Plaintiff argues that the Court should excuse his failure to exhaust the

19

grievance procedure in regards to the assault from a fellow inmate because Plaintiff did

20

not possess information to identify the staff because he was incapacitated from being

21

transported while under a “30 day medical hold.” However, this newly asserted argument

22

directly contradicts his previous statement that he decided not to file a grievances because

ORDER - 2

1

he believed there was no point. Dkt. 38 at 4. To the extent Plaintiff asserts that the

2

grievance system is a “joke” or a “sham,” this argument was already addressed and

3

rejected in the R&R, which the Court adopted. See Dkt. 43 at 16.

4

Finally, Plaintiff argues that the Court’s previous order failed to address his other

5

claims predicated on events beyond the requested additional “mats” and the assault by a

6

fellow inmate. However, contrary to Plaintiff’s contentions, the Court addressed these

7

claims by adopting the R&R’s analysis as it pertained to them. See Dkt. 51 at 3.

8

Accordingly, those claims were dismissed because (1) they were barred by the doctrine of

9

qualified immunity, (2) Plaintiff had failed to allege any of the Defendants’ personal

10

participation in the alleged violation, or (3) they were state law claims over which the

11

Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. See Dkt 43 at 19–28.

12

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Dkt. 54) is DENIED.

13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14

Dated this 7th day of November, 2017.

A

15
16

BENJAMIN H. SETTLE
United States District Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22

ORDER - 3