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)

Download PDF
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

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?