Hanson v. City of Spokane et al, No. 2:2019cv00031 - Document 8 (E.D. Wash. 2019)
Court Description: ORDER Denying 7 Plaintiff's Motion to Reconsider. Signed by Judge Rosanna Malouf Peterson. (PL, Case Administrator) (Service of Notice on parties not registered as users of the Court CM/ECF system accomplished via USPS mail.)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Hanson v. City of Spokane et al Doc. 8 1 2 FI LED I N THE U.S. DI STRI CT COURT EASTERN DI STRI CT OF WASHI NGTON 3 Apr 23, 2019 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 6 7 MICHAEL HANSON, NO: 2:19-CV-31-RMP Plaintiff, 8 9 10 11 12 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO RECONSIDER v. CITY OF SPOKANE; SPOKANE POLICE DEPARTMENT; LAURIE FARNSWORTH, Spokane Deputy City Clerk; ANTHONY DINARO, Public Records Coordinator; JOHN DOE, unknown SPD Officer, 13 Defendants. 14 15 BEFORE THE COURT is pro se Plaintiff Michael Hanson’s Motion to 16 Reconsider, ECF No. 7. Mr. Hanson objects to this Court’s order dismissing his 17 complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 for legal insufficiency. ECF No. 6. The Court 18 has reviewed Mr. Hanson’s motion and is fully informed. 19 BACKGROUND 20 Mr. Hanson filed his complaint against Defendants on January 22, 2019, 21 alleging that Defendants violated his First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO RECONSIDER ~ 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 as well as the Washington Public Records Act, by denying his public records 2 requests in 2018. ECF No. 1. He also applied for in forma pauperis status, which 3 Magistrate Judge John T. Rodgers granted on January 31, 2019. ECF Nos. 2, 4, 5. 4 Once Mr. Hanson obtained in forma pauperis status, the Court screened Mr. 5 Hanson’s complaint for legal sufficiency pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) as the 6 Court is required to do for in forma pauperis complaints. ECF No. 6. 7 The Court found Mr. Hanson’s complaint legally insufficient and dismissed 8 the complaint without prejudice, which does not prohibit Mr. Hanson from pursuing 9 his claims by alleging facts that state a claim on which relief can be granted and 10 which establish federal court jurisdiction, or alternatively pursuing his claims in state 11 court. ECF No. 6. The Court found that Mr. Hanson’s rights to receive information, 12 due process, and equal protection were not violated when his public records requests 13 were denied. Id. at 6–10. With no remaining federal claims, the Court dismissed 14 Mr. Hanson’s Washington Public Records Act claims for lack of jurisdiction 15 because a federal court does not have jurisdiction to consider only state law claims. 16 Id. at 10–11. 17 Mr. Hanson then filed the present Motion to Reconsider. ECF No. 7. He 18 objects to the Court dismissing his claims sua sponte. ECF No. 7 at 5. He argues 19 that his First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment claims were wrongfully 20 dismissed. Id. at 2–5. He also claims that the Court wrongfully dismissed his due 21 process claim under the Fifth Amendment because the Court decided it on the ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO RECONSIDER ~ 2 1 grounds of procedural due process rather than substantive due process. Id. He 2 argues that “it is an unreasonable exercise of discretion for this Court to dismiss 3 claims regarding the protections of the First Amendment.” Id. at 5. Last, he objects 4 to the Court’s determination that any appeal from the Court’s dismissal order would 5 not be taken in good faith. Id. at 6. 6 LEGAL STANDARD 7 A motion for reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 59(e)1 should not be 8 granted, “absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented 9 with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or . . . there is an intervening 10 change in the controlling law.” 389 Orange St. Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 11 665 (9th Cir. 1999). A litigant may not use a motion for reconsideration “to raise 12 arguments or present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have 13 been raised earlier in the litigation.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 14 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). In addition, “[a] motion for reconsideration cannot be used 15 to ask the Court to rethink what the Court has already thought through merely 16 17 18 19 20 21 If a motion for reconsideration is filed within 10 days of the entry of judgment, the motion is construed as a motion to alter or amend judgment under Rule 59(e); otherwise, it is construed as a motion for relief from a judgment or order under Rule 60(b). Am. Ironworks & Erectors, Inc. v. N. Am. Const. Corp., 248 F.3d 892, 898–99 (9th Cir. 2001). Considering Mr. Hanson postmarked this motion within 10 days of the entry of judgment, and Mr. Hanson is a pro se plaintiff, the Court excuses the fact that the motion was not docketed until 11 days after the entry of the dismissal order and construes Mr. Hanson’s motion as a motion under Rule 59(e). ECF No. 7-2. 1 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO RECONSIDER ~ 3 1 because a party disagrees with the Court’s decision.” Collegesource, Inc. v. 2 Academyone, Inc., No. 08CV1987-GPC(MDD), 2015 WL 8482753, at *1 (S.D. Cal. 3 Dec. 8, 2015). 4 “Granting a motion for reconsideration is a matter of judicial discretion and is 5 considered to be an ‘extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of 6 finality and conservation of judicial resources.’” United States v. Bamdad, No. CR 7 08-506-GW, 2017 WL 4064210, at *5 n.11 (C.D. Cal. May 3, 2017) (quoting 8 Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003)). 9 10 DISCUSSION Mr. Hanson’s first argument is that the Court wrongfully dismissed his First 11 and Fourteenth Amendment claims. ECF No. 7 at 2–5. Mr. Hanson claims that the 12 Court misinterpreted his complaint and the case law on the issues. Id. The Court 13 finds that it did not commit clear error in finding Mr. Hanson’s claims legally 14 insufficient. There is no First Amendment right to guaranteed access to public 15 records that are not judicial or court records. German v. Eudaly, No. 3:17-CV-2028- 16 MO, 2018 WL 3212020, at *7 (D. Or. June 29, 2018) (collecting cases). Further, 17 Mr. Hanson failed to allege that he was denied his public records requests because of 18 his belonging to a certain protected class. See Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 19 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (“To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for a violation of the 20 Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment a plaintiff must show that the 21 defendants acted with an intent or purpose to discriminate against the plaintiff based ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO RECONSIDER ~ 4 1 upon membership in a protected class.”). The Court rejects Mr. Hanson’s first 2 argument for reconsideration. 3 Second, Mr. Hanson argues that the Court erred by analyzing Mr. Hanson’s 4 due process claim as a procedural due process claim rather than a substantive due 5 process claim. ECF No. 7 at 4. Mr. Hanson made no mention of substantive due 6 process in his complaint, and even a liberal construction of Mr. Hanson’s complaint 7 does not show a substantive due process claim against Defendants. ECF No. 1. 8 Nevertheless, a substantive due process claim is also legally insufficient in this case. 9 Substantive due process only protects liberty interests that society traditionally has 10 protected as fundamental. Francheschi v. Yee, 887 F.3d 927, 937 (9th Cir. 2018). 11 Interests considered fundamental have been narrowly defined and limited, including 12 only “marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, 13 education and a person’s bodily integrity, which are ‘deeply rooted in this Nation’s 14 history and tradition.’” Id. (quoting Moore v. East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 503 15 (1977)). In the same way that Mr. Hanson’s complaint failed to allege the 16 deprivation of a protected property interest, it fails to allege the deprivation of a 17 fundamental liberty interest sufficient to state a substantive due process claim. ECF 18 No. 1. Therefore, the Court rejects Mr. Hanson’s second argument for 19 reconsideration. 20 21 Mr. Hanson’s third argument for reconsideration is that the Court wrongly dismissed his complaint sua sponte as a matter of discretion. ECF No. 7 at 5. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO RECONSIDER ~ 5 1 Because Mr. Hanson is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, the Court was 2 required to screen Mr. Hanson’s complaint for legal sufficiency before ordering 3 service on Defendants. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (holding that, after a plaintiff is 4 granted in forma pauperis status, “the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the 5 court determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . fails to state a claim on which 6 relief may be granted”); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000); see 7 also Blocker v. Universal Music Pub. Grp., No. 3:14-CV-01650-SB, 2015 WL 8 1526487, at *1 (D. Or. Apr. 3, 2015) (“A district court must perform a preliminary 9 screening of an in forma pauperis complaint and dismiss any claims that fail to state 10 a claim upon which relief may be granted, are frivolous or malicious, or seek 11 monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.”). After 12 finding Mr. Hanson’s federal claims legally insufficient, the Court then dismissed 13 Mr. Hanson’s state law claims because the Court lacked original jurisdiction over 14 them. ECF No. 6 at 10; Un. Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 15 (1966) (“Certainly, if the federal claims are dismissed before trial, even though not 16 insubstantial in a jurisdictional sense, the state claims should be dismissed as well.”). 17 The Court was acting in accordance with the requirements of 28 U.S.C. §§ 18 1915(e)(2), 1331, 1332, 1367 and case law when it dismissed Mr. Hanson’s 19 complaint without prejudice. The Court rejects Mr. Hanson’s third argument for 20 reconsideration. 21 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO RECONSIDER ~ 6 1 Last, Mr. Hanson argues that it was improper for this Court to determine that 2 any appeal from its legal sufficiency order would not be made in good faith. ECF 3 No. 7 at 6. Mr. Hanson points to no clear error by the Court in making this finding. 4 When the district court makes decisions concerning in forma pauperis cases, the 5 district court must determine whether the pro se plaintiff may appeal the order. 28 6 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). An appeal pro se and in forma pauperis should not be 7 permitted when the appeal would be frivolous or futile. See Miranda v. Brainin, 8 Civil No. 10-1816 H(PCL), 2011 WL 866987, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 10, 2011). The 9 appeal certification proceeding is a requirement for the Court to make for plaintiffs 10 proceeding in forma pauperis . 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). The Court rejects Mr. 11 Hanson’s final argument for reconsideration. 12 If a complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, a 13 district court should dismiss that complaint with leave to amend, unless amendment 14 would be futile. See Carrico v. City and Cty. of S.F., 656 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 15 2011). “If a complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim, leave to amend 16 should be granted unless the court determines that the allegation of other facts 17 consistent with the challenged pleading could not possibly cure the deficiency.” 18 Schreiber Distrib. Co. v Serv-Well Furniture Co., 806 F.2d 1393, 1401 (9th Cir. 19 1986). If no facts consistent with the pleading could cure the deficiencies of the 20 complaint, a district court can deny leave to amend and dismiss the claims with 21 prejudice. See DeSoto v. Yellow Freight Sys., Inc., 957 F.2d 655, 659 (9th Cir. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO RECONSIDER ~ 7 1 1992) (holding district court did not abuse discretion in denying leave to amend 2 when no facts consistent with the complaint could save plaintiff’s claims). 3 The Court dismissed Mr. Hanson’s claims without prejudice, meaning that 4 Mr. Hanson may refile his claims in federal court with sufficient factual allegations 5 to establish federal court jurisdiction as well as establishing claims upon which relief 6 could be granted by this Court, thereby allowing him to proceed past the legal 7 screening portion of the in forma pauperis process. Alternatively, Mr. Hanson also 8 may file his claims in state court which do not have the same jurisdictional 9 restrictions as federal courts. At this juncture, the Court has found that there is an 10 insufficient basis for concluding that Mr. Hanson’s claims rise to a constitutional 11 level that would establish federal jurisdiction. However, Mr. Hanson’s claims do 12 appear to center on potential state law claims regarding the Washington Public 13 Records Act. 14 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 15 1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider, ECF No. 7, is DENIED. 16 2. The Court certifies that any appeal of this order would not be taken in 17 18 19 20 21 good faith. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Clerk is directed to enter this Order and provide a copy to Mr. Hanson. DATED April 23, 2019. s/ Rosanna Malouf Peterson ROSANNA MALOUF PETERSON United States District Judge ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO RECONSIDER ~ 8
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
