FlawCheck Citator
Check how courts have cited this case. Use our free citator for the most current treatment.
No. 10160746
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Marlin Pickens v. Virginia Mason Franciscan Health

No. 10160746 · Decided October 24, 2024
No. 10160746 · Ninth Circuit · 2024 · FlawFinder last updated this page Apr. 2, 2026
Case Details
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided
October 24, 2024
Citation
No. 10160746
Disposition
See opinion text.
Full Opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 24 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MARLIN GIOVANNI PICKENS, No. 23-35163 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:22-cv-05019-RSM v. MEMORANDUM * VIRGINIA MASON FRANCISCAN HEALTH, AKA Saint Joseph Medical Center, Health Care Services - Emergency Department; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Ricardo S. Martinez, District Judge, Presiding Submitted October 16, 2024** Before: SILVERMAN, R. NELSON, and MILLER, Circuit Judges. Marlin Giovanni Pickens appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration of its summary judgment in Pickens’s 42 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Pickens’s request for oral argument, set forth in the opening brief, is denied. U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various claims arising out of two emergency department visits. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Guenther v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 972 F.3d 1043, 1058 (9th Cir. 2020) (motion for reconsideration); Hinton v. Pac. Enters., 5 F.3d 391, 395 (9th Cir. 1993) (compliance with local rules). We affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Pickens’s motion for reconsideration because Pickens failed to establish a basis for such relief. See W.D. Wash. R. 7(h)(1) (explaining that motions for reconsideration are disfavored and will be denied absent a showing of manifest error or new facts or legal authority that could not have been brought to the court’s attention earlier with reasonable diligence). We do not consider facts or documents not presented to the district court. See United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990). AFFIRMED. 2 23-35163
Plain English Summary
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 24 2024 MOLLY C.
Key Points
Frequently Asked Questions
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 24 2024 MOLLY C.
FlawCheck shows no negative treatment for Marlin Pickens v. Virginia Mason Franciscan Health in the current circuit citation data.
This case was decided on October 24, 2024.
Use the citation No. 10160746 and verify it against the official reporter before filing.
Why Attorneys Choose FlawFinder

Why Attorneys Choose FlawFinder

Side-by-side with Westlaw and LexisNexis

Feature FlawFinder Westlaw LexisNexis
Monthly price$19 – $99$133 – $646$153 – $399
ContractNone1–3 year min1–6 year min
Hidden fees$0, alwaysUp to $469/search$25/mo + per-doc
FlawCheck citatorIncludedKeyCite ($$$)Shepard's ($$$)
Plain-English summaryIncludedNoNo
CancelOne clickTermination feesAccount friction
Related Cases

Full legal research for $19/month

All 50 states · Federal regulations · Case law · Police SOPs · AI analysis included · No contract

Continue Researching →