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.

Pope v. Palmer

United States District Court, District of Nevada

April 7, 2015

KEVIN POPE, Plaintiff,
v.
JACK PALMER, et al., Defendants.

ORDER

MIRANDA M. DU UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

This is a prisoner civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On September 8, 2014, the Court issued an order (dkt. no. 34) dismissing this action without prejudice for failure to file a second amended complaint pursuant to this Court’s order dated May 23, 2014, which set forth the deficiencies in the first amended complaint (dkt. no. 26). Judgment was entered on September 9, 2014 (dkt. no. 35). Before the Court is plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the order dismissing his case (dkt. no. 36).[1]

Where a ruling has resulted in final judgment or order, a motion for reconsideration may be construed either as a motion to alter or amend judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), or as a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Federal Rule 60(b). School Dist. No. 1J Multnomah County v. AC&S, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993), cert. denied 512 U.S. 1236 (1994).

Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) the court may relieve a party from a final judgment or order for the following reasons:

(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or otherwise vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or (6) any other reason that justifies relief.

Motions to reconsider are generally left to the discretion of the trial court. See Combs v. Nick Garin Trucking, 825 F.2d 437, 441 (D.C. Cir. 1987). In order to succeed on a motion to reconsider, a party must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior decision. See Kern-Tulare Water Dist. v. City of Bakersfield, 634 F.Supp. 656, 665 (E.D. Cal. 1986), aff’d in part and rev’d in part on other grounds 828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir. 1987). Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that any “motion to alter or amend a judgment must be filed no later than 28 days after entry of the judgment.” Furthermore, a motion under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) “should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.” Herbst v. Cook, 260 F.3d 1039, 1044 (9thCir. 2001), quoting McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 1255 (9th Cir. 1999).

This Court dismissed plaintiff’s first amended complaint with leave to amend and directed plaintiff to file a second amended complaint within thirty (30) days that corrected the deficiencies identified by the Court (dkt. no. 26). Instead, plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of that order (dkt. no. 27). The Court denied the motion for reconsideration and gave plaintiff an additional thirty (30) days to file a second amended complaint (dkt. no. 29). Plaintiff failed to file a second amended complaint, and, after more than twice the allotted time had elapsed, the Court entered an order dismissing the action without prejudice (dkt. no. 34). Plaintiff then filed the instant motion for reconsideration of the order dismissing this action (dkt. no. 36). However, as plaintiff never filed a second amended complaint, there is nothing new for this Court to reconsider. Plaintiff essentially seeks a second reconsideration of the order directing him to file a second amended complaint. Plaintiff has failed to make any showing under either Rule 60(b) or 59(e) that this Court’s order dismissing this action should be reversed. Accordingly, plaintiffs motion for reconsideration (dkt. no. 36) is denied.

Plaintiff has also filed a second renewed motion for copywork (dkt. no. 42) as well as a renewed motion for appointment of counsel (dkt. no. 43). However, as the motion for reconsideration is denied, this action remains closed, and this Court has no jurisdiction to consider these motions. The Ninth Circuit has already granted plaintiff an extension of the copywork limit in the appeal of this case, and plaintiff must file any motion seeking a further extension of the copywork limit or the appointment of counsel with the Ninth Circuit. Accordingly, plaintiffs motions are denied.

It is therefore ordered that plaintiffs motion for reconsideration (dkt. no. 36) is denied.

It is further ordered that plaintiffs renewed motion to extend prison copywork limit (dkt. no. 42) and renewed motion for appointment of counsel (dkt. no. 43) are both denied.

It is further ordered that plaintiff shall file no more documents in this closed case.


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.