Green v. Gilbert et al

Filing 65

ORDER denying 53 Motion for Reconsideration and the 55 MOTION for the Court's Assistance, signed by Magistrate Judge David W. Christel.**3 PAGE(S), PRINT ALL**(DeAngelo Green, Prisoner ID: 310589)(CMG)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 8 9 10 DEANGELO A. GREEN, 11 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING “OBJECTION” AND MOTION FOR ASSISTANCE v. 12 CASE NO. 3:17-cv-05898-RBL-DWC MARGARET GILBERT, et al., 13 Defendant. 14 15 The District Court has referred this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action filed by Plaintiff DeAngelo 16 17 A. Green to United States Magistrate Judge David W. Christel. Before the Court is Plaintiff’s 18 Objection to the Order Denying Motion to Add Exhibits (Dkt. 53) and Plaintiff’s Motion for the 19 Court’s Assistance in Serving the Third Amended Complaint (“Motion for Assistance”) (Dkt. 20 55). 21 I. “Objection” to Court’s Previous Order (Dkt. 53) 22 Plaintiff has filed a pleading he entitled an “Objection.” Dkt. 53. However, the body of 23 this pleading appears to ask the Court to reconsider its earlier Order denying Plaintiff’s request to 24 ORDER DENYING “OBJECTION” AND MOTION FOR ASSISTANCE - 1 1 attach exhibits to his amended complaints. Dkt. 50. Therefore, the Court interprets this 2 “Objection” as a Motion for Reconsideration. Dkt. 53. 3 Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7(h), motions for reconsideration are disfavored and will be 4 denied absent a showing of manifest error or a showing of new facts or legal authority which 5 could not have been presented earlier with reasonable diligence. Here, Plaintiff fails to show a 6 manifest error in the Court’s prior ruling or new facts or legal authority which could not have 7 been presented earlier. Rather, Plaintiff contends that he should be allowed to provide evidence 8 to the Court in support of his Complaint and that he is merely trying to place the Court on notice 9 of the exhibits he has acquired so far. Dkt. 53. However, the Court earlier ruled that, at this stage 10 of the proceeding, where the Court has not even entered a Pretrial Scheduling Order, all that is 11 required under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is a short and plain statement with a demand 12 for relief. Dkt. 50; Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. Exhibits and other evidence on the record are not yet 13 required for plaintiff to proceed with his Third Amended Complaint. Plaintiff has not otherwise 14 shown why the Court requires additional evidence at this stage, nor how the Court’s previous 15 determination was manifest error. Therefore, the Court denies Plaintiff’s Motion for 16 Reconsideration. Dkt. 53. 17 II. 18 Plaintiff has also filed a motion requesting the Court’s assistance in serving his Third Motion for Assistance (Dkt. 55) 19 Amended Complaint on Defendants. Dkt. 55. However, the Court has already entered an order of 20 21 22 23 24 ORDER DENYING “OBJECTION” AND MOTION FOR ASSISTANCE - 2 1 service for the additional Defendants Plaintiff names in his Third Amended Complaint. Dkt. 63. 2 Therefore, the Court denies Plaintiff Motion for Assistance (Dkt. 55) as moot. 3 III. 4 For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff’s “Objection” (Dkt. 53) and Motion for the Court’s Conclusion 5 Assistance (Dkt. 55) are denied. 6 Dated this 1st day of June, 2018. A 7 8 David W. Christel United States Magistrate Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ORDER DENYING “OBJECTION” AND MOTION FOR ASSISTANCE - 3

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?