Howse et al v. State of Washington Department of Social and Health Services, et al

Filing 92

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 91 Motion for Reconsideration of 86 Order, signed by Judge Benjamin H. Settle. (GMR)

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

6
7
8
9

PHILLIP HOWSE, individually and on
behalf of his marital community with
GWENDYLENA HOWSE, his wife
Plaintiff,

10
11

CASE NO. C16-5939 BHS
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION

v.
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
et al.,

12
Defendants.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Phillip Howse’s (“Howse”)
motion for reconsideration. Dkt. 91.
On October 11, 2018, the Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants the
State of Washington, the Department of Corrections, and the Washington State
Department of Social and Health Services’s (“Defendants”) motion for summary
judgment and denied Howse’s motion for leave to amend. Dkt. 86. On November 5,
2018, Howse filed a motion for reconsideration. Dkt. 91.

21
22

ORDER - 1

1

Motions for reconsideration “are disfavored” and “will ordinarily” be denied

2

absent a manifest error of law or new facts that necessitate reconsideration. Local Rules

3

W.D. Wash. LCR 7(h)(1).

4

In this case, Howse argues that the Court committed manifest errors in denying his

5

motion for leave to amend and in granting a portion of Defendants’ motion. Dkt. 91.

6

First, Howse asserts, without authority, that “[i]f the Court had allowed the amendment to

7

add tortfeasors managers Brian Clark and Mark McFarland, it would have cured any

8

Eleventh Amendment immunity issues addressed in this Court’s order.” Id. at 3. Howse

9

fails to articulate or provide the Court any indication of how adding a state employee in

10

his official capacity cures these immunity issues. Moreover, the Court cited, and Howse

11

fails to refute, his assertion that allowing the amendment in federal court would merely

12

alleviate a separate action in state court. Dkt. 86 at 17 (citing Howse’s motion, Dkt. 67 at

13

2, ¶ 4). Thus, Howse has failed to identify any manifest error that warrants

14

reconsideration.

15

Second, Howse argues that Defendants would not be prejudiced if the Court

16

allowed the amendments. Howse, however, fails to recognize that the standard at this

17

point of the proceeding is whether Howse was diligent is seeking to amend his claims.

18

Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). Failing to

19

show diligence ends the inquiry. Id. Howse failed to show diligence in his motion to

20

amend and in the instant motion. Therefore, the Court denies Howse’s motion for

21

reconsideration on this issue.

22

ORDER - 2

1

Third, Howse argues that the Court committed manifest error in granting

2

Defendants summary judgment on his harassment, hostile work environment, and

3

retaliation claims. Dkt. 91 at 4–6. Howse, however, merely recites the facts that the

4

Court has already considered. Howse fails to articulate a specific error in the Court’s

5

analysis of the burden shifting framework or the Court’s conclusion that Howse failed to

6

identify severe and pervasive conduct. See Dkt. 86 at 12–16. Therefore, the Court denies

7

Howse’s motion on this issue.

8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9

Dated this 7th day of November, 2018.

A

10
11

BENJAMIN H. SETTLE
United States District Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

ORDER - 3