Opinion

Brown v. Murphy

Court
District Court, W.D. Washington
Filed
Oct 5, 2023
Cited by
0 cases

The opinion

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR

1

2

3

4

5

6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

8 AT SEATTLE

9 MAURICE ANTHONY BROWN, CASE NO. C23-0835-JCC

10

Plaintiff, ORDER

11

v.

12

MATTHEW MURPHY, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14

15

16

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Dkt. No.

17

12) of this Court’s order dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice. (Dkt. No. 10.)

18

Having thoroughly considered the relevant record, the Court hereby DENIES the reconsideration

19

motion for the reasons explained herein.

20

Motions for reconsideration are generally disfavored. LCR 7(h)(1). Reconsideration is

21

only appropriate where there is “manifest error in the prior ruling or a showing of new facts or

22

legal authority which could not have been brought to [the Court’s] attention earlier with

23

reasonable diligence.” Id. “A motion for reconsideration should not be used to ask the court to

24

rethink what the court had already thought through—rightly or wrongly.” Ma v. Univ. of S.

25

California, 2019 WL 1239269, slip op. at 1 (W.D. Wash. 2019).

26

1 In the instant case, Plaintiff fails to demonstrate manifest error in the prior ruling or a

2 showing of new facts or legal authority, as required by LCR 7(h)(1). Instead, Plaintiff merely

3 reiterates arguments that were already considered and rejected by the Court. (Compare Dkt. No.

4 5 at 7–8, with Dkt. Nos. 12 at 7–10.)1

5 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Dkt. No. 12) is DENIED.

6

7 DATED this 5th day of October 2023.

8 A

9

10

11 John C. Coughenour

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

1 The Court previously ordered Plaintiff to file an amended complaint to cure deficiencies

25

identified in his complaint. (See Dkt. No. 9.) When Plaintiff failed to do so in a timely manner,

26 the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice. (See Dkt. No. 10.) The Court notes

that the untimely amended complaint, attached to Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Dkt. No.

12 at 2–16), does not cure the previously identified deficiencies.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.