# Brown v. Murphy

> District Court, W.D. Washington · October 5, 2023

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10709931

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, W.D. Washington
- **Decided:** October 5, 2023
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10709931

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10709931. Public record. Not legal advice.