1 2

3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE

9 10 MYRIAM ZAYAS, CASE NO. C20-0981JLR-TLF 11 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 12 DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN 13 YOUTH AND FAMILIES, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 I. INTRODUCTION 16 Before the court is pro se Plaintiff Myriam Zayas’s “Statement of Facts,” which 17 she filed on October 3, 2022. (Statement (Dkt. # 66).) The court liberally construes her 18 filing as either a request for relief from the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil 19 Procedure 60(b) or as a motion for reconsideration under Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 20 7(h). See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (“A document filed pro se is ‘to be 21 liberally construed’[.]”) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)). Because 22 Ms. Zayas’s filing does not satisfy the requirements of either Rule 60(b) or LCR 7(h), the court DENIES Ms. Zayas’s “Statement of Facts.”

II. BACKGROUND Ms. Zayas filed this case on June 18, 2020, alleging that Defendants the Department of Children Youth and Families (“DYCF”), Jamia McRae, Kejana Black, and Lonette Dominguez violated her civil rights. (Compl. (Dkt. # 1).) She amended her complaint several times over the following months. (See generally Dkt.) On September 5, 2020, Ms. Zayas amended her complaint to add claims against Defendant Shea

Hopfauf. (3rd Am. Compl. (Dkt. # 18).) On October 5, 2020, Ms. Zayas and Defendants DYCF, Ms. Black, and Ms. Dominguez stipulated to the dismissal with prejudice of Ms. Zayas’s claims against those Defendants. (Stip. (Dkt. # 26).) Ms. Zayas subsequently filed her fourth and fifth amended complaints. (4th Am. Compl. (Dkt. # 25); 5th Am. Compl. (Dkt. # 32).)

On January 15, 2021, the remaining Defendants moved to dismiss Ms. Zayas’s claims against them. (MTD (Dkt. # 40) (moving to dismiss Ms. Zayas’s fifth amended complaint).) Ms. Zayas filed multiple responses to Defendants’ motion, both before and after Defendants filed their reply in support of their motion. (See generally Dkt.) She also filed sixth and seventh amended complaints without seeking the court’s leave to do

so. (6th Am. Compl. (Dkt. # 52); 7th Am. Compl. (Dkt. # 54).) On August 6, 2021, Magistrate Judge Theresa L. Fricke issued a report and recommendation in which she recommended that the court grant Defendants’ motion to dismiss. (See generally R&R (Dkt. # 57).) She also recommended that the court strike Ms. Zayas’s sixth and seventh amended complaints. (Id. at 7.) On September 8, 2021, the court adopted in part and modified in part Magistrate Judge Fricke’s report and

recommendation over Ms. Zayas’s objections. (9/8/21 Order (Dkt. # 60); see Obj. (Dkt. # 58).) In relevant part, the court (1) struck Ms. Zayas’s sixth and seventh amended complaints; (2) dismissed Ms. Zayas’s 18 U.S.C. § 242, RCW 42.20.100, and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims with prejudice and without leave to amend; and (3) dismissed Ms. Zayas’s 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 claims without prejudice and with leave to amend. (9/8/21 Order at 5.) The court directed Ms. Zayas to file an amended

complaint that addressed the deficiencies identified in the report and recommendation within 21 days of entry of its order. (Id.) Thus, Ms. Zayas’s amended complaint, if any, was due by September 29, 2022. Ms. Zayas did not further amend her complaint, although the court gave her leave to do so. (See generally Dkt.) Accordingly, on October 12, 2021, the court dismissed

Ms. Zayas’s claims with prejudice and without leave to amend and entered judgment in favor of Defendants. (10/12/21 Order (Dkt. # 62); Judgment (Dkt. # 63).) III. ANALYSIS To the extent that her filing can be liberally construed as a request for relief from a final judgment under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Ms. Zayas has

not shown that she meets the grounds for relief in this case. Under Rule 60(b), the court may relieve a party from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, 22 could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial 1 under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing 2 party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based on an earlier 3 judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or (6) any other reason that justifies relief.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). A Rule 60(b) motion must be made “within a reasonable time” and for the first three listed reasons, no more than a year after entry of judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c). Ms. Zayas’s filing asserts that her federal court cases may have been improperly dismissed because she filed “too many amended complaints.” (Statement at 2.) The court, however, provided Ms. Zayas detailed reasons for why it was dismissing her case; granted her leave to file another amended complaint that addressed the deficiencies identified in the report and recommendation; provided her 21 days to make that filing; and waited an additional two weeks before dismissing the case with prejudice. (See 9/8/21 Order; 10/12/21 Order.) Thus, Ms. Zayas’s reasoning does not apply to the court’s order dismissing her case. Therefore, to the extent Ms. Zayas’s filing can be liberally construed as a request for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b), the court denies it. To the extent that her filing could be liberally construed as a motion for reconsideration under LCR 7(h), Ms. Zayas has not shown that she meets the grounds for reconsideration in this case. “Motions for reconsideration are disfavored,” and the court “will ordinarily deny such motions in the absence of a showing of manifest error in the prior ruling or a showing of new facts or legal authority which could not have been brought to its attention earlier with reasonable diligence.” LCR 7(h)(1). Ms. Zayas has made neither showing here. Further, a motion for reconsideration must “be filed within

fourteen days after the order to which it related is filed.” LCR 7(h)(2). Ms. Zayas filed her “Statement of Facts” well outside of this period. Therefore, to the extent that Plaintiff’s filing could be liberally construed as a motion for reconsideration under LCR 7(h), the court denies it. IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, to the extent Ms. Zayas’s filing can be liberally construed

as a motion for relief under Rule 60(b) or as a motion for reconsideration under LCR 7(h), the court DENIES Ms. Zayas’s “Statement of Facts” (Dkt. # 66). Dated this 5th day of October, 2022.

A 13 14 JAMES L. ROBART United States District Judge