Olsen v. Olsen et al

Filing 14

ORDER denying 10 Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration; finding as moot 11 Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Counsel; plaintiff has failed to pay the filing fee or file an amended complaint; this matter is closed; signed by Judge Ronald B. Leighton.(DN) Modified on 5/30/2017 (DN). (cc to pltf)

HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

7
8

CHRISTOPHER WILLIAM OLSEN,

CASE NO. C17-5281-RBL

9
Plaintiff,
10
11
12

ORDER DENYING MOTION

v.
MICHELLE OLSEN, et al.

DKT. #10

Defendants.

13
14

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

15

[Dkt. #10]. Olsen petitioned the Court for permission to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court

16

denied his motion as time-barred, but granted him 21 days to pay the court’s filing fee or to

17

amend his complaint to assert a plausible, timely claim. See Dkt. #3 (Order denying motion but

18

allowing Olsen until May 22, 2017 to pay the court’s filing fee or to file an amended complaint).

19

Olsen did not do either. Instead, he asks the Court to reconsider its earlier decision.

20

Motions for reconsideration are disfavored. The Court will ordinarily deny such motions

21

in the absence of a showing of new legal authority or facts that could not have been brought to its

22

attention earlier with reasonable diligence or a showing of manifest error in the prior ruling. See

23

Local Rule W.D. Wash. CR 7(h)(1). The term “manifest error” is “an error that is plain and

24

ORDER DENYING MOTION - 1

1

indisputable, and that amounts to a complete disregard of the controlling law or the credible

2

evidence in the record.” Black’s Law Dictionary 622 (9th ed. 2009).
Olsen recounts how he was abused as a child, from 1995 to 2006. He has not brought

3
4

new legal authority or facts to the Court’s attention or shown manifest error.
Nor, construing his motion as an amended complaint and a renewed motion to proceed in

5
6

forma pauperis, has he asserted a timely claim upon which the Court could grant him relief. See

7

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (A claim for relief

8

is facially plausible when “the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the

9

reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”). Olsen’s claims of

10

childhood abuse are time-barred, and so his complaint is frivolous.

11

Olsen’s Motion for Reconsideration [Dkt. #10] is DENIED. This case is closed. Olsen

12

did not pay the filing fee or state a plausible, timely claim for relief supporting a grant of IFP

13

status.

14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15

Dated this 30th day of May, 2017.

17

A

18

Ronald B. Leighton
United States District Judge

16

19

20
21
22
23
24

DKT. #10 - 2