Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Erler v. Bisbee

United States District Court, D. Nevada

October 7, 2014

ROBERT ERLER, Plaintiff,
v.
CONNIE BISBEE, et al., Defendants.

ORDER

LARRY R. HICKS, District Judge.

I. DISCUSSION

On September 10, 2014, this Court entered a screening order dismissing the case in its entirety, with prejudice, for failure to state a cognizable 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim. (ECF No. 3 at 5). The Court also denied the application to proceed in forma pauperis as moot and certified that an in forma pauperis appeal would be taken in good faith. ( Id. at 5-6).

In the complaint, Plaintiff had sued members of the parole board for equal protection and due process violations for denying him parole. (ECF No. 4 at 2-3, 5, 8). Plaintiff alleged that Connie Bisbee, the chairman of the parole board, had a policy to deny parole to convicted sex offenders like Plaintiff. ( Id. at 5-6). Plaintiff alleged that Bisbee had influenced other parole board members to follow her policy. ( Id. at 6). Plaintiff alleged that, had he been convicted of any other crime, he would have had a better chance of receiving parole. ( Id. at 7-8).

This Court found that Plaintiff's claims were attempting to challenge the allegedly improper procedural defects in the parole process and the purported bias of the parole board members. (ECF No. 3 at 5). Relying on Ninth Circuit law, [1] this Court found that Plaintiff had failed to state a cognizable § 1983 claim because he was attempting to challenge the validity of his confinement. ( Id. at 4-5).

On September 29, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Relief from Judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). (ECF No. 7). In the motion, Plaintiff argues that he is not seeking immediate release from prison and is not claiming a right to parole. ( Id. at 2). He asserts that, if the Court were to grant the relief sought, he would have an opportunity to present his case for parole to an unbiased, non-discriminatory board. ( Id. ). Plaintiff then reiterates the allegations in his complaint. ( See id. at 3-4). Plaintiff also asserts that, had he been convicted of any other crime, he would have received parole. ( Id. at 4).

A motion to reconsider must set forth "some valid reason why the court should reconsider its prior decision" and set "forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to persuade the court to reverse its prior decision." Frasure v. United States, 256 F.Supp.2d 1180, 1183 (D. Nev. 2003). Reconsideration is appropriate if this Court "(1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law." Sch. Dist. No. 1J v. Acands, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). "A motion for reconsideration is not an avenue to re-litigate the same issues and arguments upon which the court already has ruled." Brown v. Kinross Gold, U.S.A., 378 F.Supp.2d 1280, 1288 (D. Nev. 2005).

The Court denies Plaintiff's Rule 60(b) motion to reconsider. The Court does not find that it committed clear error in its original order. Plaintiff's underlying argument is that he would have been granted parole if he had not been a sex offender or if the parole board would not have been biased against sex offenders. As such, the Court denies Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration.

II. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that the motion for relief from judgment (ECF No. 7) is denied.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.