From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Basra v. Morgan

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA
Oct 11, 2018
CASE NO. C16-6005 RBL (W.D. Wash. Oct. 11, 2018)

Opinion

CASE NO. C16-6005 RBL

10-11-2018

PARAMJIT SINGH BASRA, Plaintiff, v. RICHARD MORGAN, Defendant.


ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff Basra's Motion for Reconsideration [Dkt. # 88] of the Court's Order [Dkt. # 83] DENYING his Motion for Appointment of Counsel [Dkt. # 79]. Basra emphasizes, again, that he faces "a clear language barrier."

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 that amounts to a complete disregard of the controlling law or the credible evidence in the record." Black's Law Dictionary 622 (9th ed. 2009).

Reconsideration is an "extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources." Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). "[A] motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law." Marlyn Natraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009). Neither the Local Civil Rules nor the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, which allow for a motion for reconsideration, is intended to provide litigants with a second bite at the apple. A motion for reconsideration should not be used to ask a court to rethink what the court had already thought through — rightly or wrongly. Defenders of Wildlife v. Browner, 909 F.Supp. 1342, 1351 (D. Ariz. 1995). Mere disagreement with a previous order is an insufficient basis for reconsideration, and reconsideration may not be based on evidence and legal arguments that could have been presented at the time of the challenged decision. Haw. Stevedores, Inc. v. HT & T Co., 363 F. Supp. 2d 1253, 1269 (D. Haw. 2005). "Whether or not to grant reconsideration is committed to the sound discretion of the court." Navajo Nation v. Confederated Tribes & Bands of the Yakima Indian Nation, 331 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th Cir. 2003). // // // // // //

Basra has not met the "manifest error" standard for reconsideration, because claiming a language barrier is not enough to meet the "exceptional circumstances" standard for the appointment of an attorney. The Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated this 11th day of October, 2018.

/s/_________

Ronald B. Leighton

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Basra v. Morgan

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA
Oct 11, 2018
CASE NO. C16-6005 RBL (W.D. Wash. Oct. 11, 2018)
Case details for

Basra v. Morgan

Case Details

Full title:PARAMJIT SINGH BASRA, Plaintiff, v. RICHARD MORGAN, Defendant.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA

Date published: Oct 11, 2018

Citations

CASE NO. C16-6005 RBL (W.D. Wash. Oct. 11, 2018)