Ziegler v. Washington Department of Corrections et al

Filing 12

ORDER denying 11 Motion for Reconsideration; signed by Judge Ronald B. Leighton.**3 PAGE(S), PRINT ALL**(Jeffrey Ziegler, Prisoner ID: 886970)(DN)

HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

7
8
9

JEFFREY S ZIEGLER,
Plaintiff,

10
11
12

v.

CASE NO. C18-5471 RBL
ORDER

WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS,
Defendant.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff Zeigler’s Motion for Reconsideration
[Dkt. # 11] of the Court’s Order [Dkt. # 9] adopting the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation [Dkt. #8] and dismissing with prejudice Zeigler’s complaint.
Zeigler’s Motion claims he suffered a mini stroke and reiterates his desire for an attorney,
but it does not address the substance of the Report and Recommendation, or the bases for the
dismissal.
Under Local Rule 7(h)(1), motions for reconsideration are disfavored, and will ordinarily
be denied unless there is a showing of (a) manifest error in the ruling, or (b) facts or legal
authority which could not have been brought to the attention of the court earlier, through
reasonable diligence. The term “manifest error” is “an error that is plain and indisputable, and

24

ORDER - 1

1

that amounts to a complete disregard of the controlling law or the credible evidence in the

2

record.” Black's Law Dictionary 622 (9th ed. 2009).

3

Reconsideration is an “extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of

4

finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d

5

877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). “[A] motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly

6

unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence,

7

committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.” Marlyn

8

Natraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009). Neither

9

the Local Civil Rules nor the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, which allow for a motion for

10

reconsideration, is intended to provide litigants with a second bite at the apple. A motion for

11

reconsideration should not be used to ask a court to rethink what the court had already thought

12

through — rightly or wrongly. Defenders of Wildlife v. Browner, 909 F.Supp. 1342, 1351 (D.

13

Ariz. 1995). Mere disagreement with a previous order is an insufficient basis for reconsideration,

14

and reconsideration may not be based on evidence and legal arguments that could have been

15

presented at the time of the challenged decision. Haw. Stevedores, Inc. v. HT & T Co., 363 F.

16

Supp. 2d 1253, 1269 (D. Haw. 2005). “Whether or not to grant reconsideration is committed to

17

the sound discretion of the court.” Navajo Nation v. Confederated Tribes & Bands of the Yakima

18

Indian Nation, 331 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th Cir. 2003).

19

//

20

//

21

//

22

//

23
24

ORDER - 2

1

Zeigler’s Motion does not meet this standard and it is DENIED. This matter is closed.

2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

3

Dated this 7th day of August, 2018.

4
5

A

6

Ronald B. Leighton
United States District Judge

7

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

ORDER - 3