1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

_______________________________________)

RICHARD ROY SCOTT, )

) No. MC05-5029

Plaintiff, ) 

v. )

) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

AL NERIO, et al., ) MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

) OF ORDER PERMITTING CASE TO

Defendants. ) PROCEED

_______________________________________)

This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff’s “Motion to Amend Order to Proceed”

(Dkt. #104). Plaintiff requests that the Court “clarify” its June 20, 2006 Order, where the Court

stated: “Although plaintiff has already filed two complaints regarding the confiscation of his

computer . . . the Court will accept at face value plaintiff’s representation that this complaint

involves only the adverse consequences of the April 6, 2006, disciplinary hearing. Plaintiff will

not be permitted to litigate prior events, such as the confiscation of his computer in February and

March 2006, in the context of this action.” See Dkt. #67; Dkt. #2 in No. C06-5340RJB, at 2. 

The Court considers plaintiff’s request to “clarify” this Order as a motion for reconsideration. 

Under Local Civil Rule 7(h)(2), a “motion [for reconsideration] shall be filed within ten

judicial days following the order to which it relates. . . . Failure to comply with this subsection

Case 3:06-cv-05340-RJB Document 64 Filed 01/29/07 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

 Plaintiff attached a copy of the Order (Dkt. #47) in Scott v. Nerio, No. C06-5340RJB, as

Exhibit 1 to his motion. Therefore, the Court considers plaintiff’s “Motion to Amend Order to Proceed”

as directed at the “Order Permitting Case to Proceed” (Dkt. #2) in Scott v. Nerio, No. C06-5340RJB.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION -2-

may be grounds for denial of the motion.”1 The Court’s “Order Permitting Case to Proceed”

was filed on June 20, 2006. Dkt. #67. Plaintiff’s “Motion to Amend Order to Proceed” was

filed on December 20, 2006, more than ten judicial days following the Court’s Order. 

Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion is denied as untimely. 

Additionally, motions for reconsideration are disfavored in this district and will be

granted only upon “a showing of manifest error in the prior ruling or a showing of new facts or

legal authority.” Local Civil Rule 7(h)(1). Defendant has not met this burden. The issue

involving plaintiff’s prior complaints about the confiscation of his computer was raised and

considered in the June 20, 2006 Order Permitting Case to Proceed. See Dkt. #2 at 2 in No. C06-

5340 (citing No. MC05-5029, Dkt. #43 (now No. C06-5173) and Dkt. #50). No new facts or

legal authority have been presented and no manifest error has been shown.

For all of the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s “Motion to Amend Order to Proceed” (Dkt.

#104) is DENIED. The Clerk of Court is directed to docket this Order in both No. MC05-5029

and No. C06-5340RJB.

DATED this 26th day of January, 2007.

A

Robert S. Lasnik

United States District Judge 

Case 3:06-cv-05340-RJB Document 64 Filed 01/29/07 Page 2 of 2