United States District Court, D. Nevada
MIRANDA M. DU UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
January 31, 2017, this Court entered a screening order
dismissing the entire complaint without leave to amend,
denied the application to proceed in forma pauperis
as moot, and certified that any in forma pauperis
appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. (ECF
No. 3 at 6.) In the complaint, Plaintiff sought declaratory
relief and prospective injunctive relief for a parole hearing
that would take place sometime after June 5, 2019.
(Id. at 3.) The Court dismissed Plaintiff's
complaint on the grounds that he could not establish
irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief at this
time and that he could not challenge the constitutionality of
the statute that he was convicted of in a 42 U.S.C. §
1983 action based on Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S.
74, 78 (2005) and Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922
(9th Cir. 2016). (Id. at 5.)
now files a motion for reconsideration. (ECF No.
In the motion, Plaintiff disagrees with the Court's
interpretation of Wilkinson and challenges the
dismissal of his complaint on all grounds. (See
generally ECF No. 6.) Plaintiff asserts that an appeal
would be taken in good faith. (Id. at 8.)
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).
Court denies Plaintiff's motion in part and grants it in
part. The Court has reviewed Plaintiff's arguments and
does not find that it committed clear error in its initial
decision. However, the Court will reconsider its findings
with respect to Plaintiff's application to proceed in
forma pauperis. The Court will now grant Plaintiff's
application to proceed in forma pauperis and certify
that an appeal would be taken in good faith.
foregoing reasons, it is ordered that the motion for
reconsideration (ECF No. 5) is denied as moot.
further ordered that the motion for reconsideration (ECF No.
6) is granted in part and denied in part. The Court denies
the motion based on its legal arguments but will grant the
motion with respect to reconsideration of the application to
proceed in forma pauperis.
further ordered that the Court vacates the denial of the
application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1)
as moot and reinstates the application to proceed in
further ordered that Plaintiff's application to proceed
in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1) without having to
prepay the full filing fee is granted. Plaintiff will not be
required to pay an initial installment fee. Nevertheless, the
full filing fee will still be due, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915, as amended by the Prisoner Litigation Reform
Act. The movant herein is permitted to maintain this action
to conclusion without the necessity of prepayment of fees or
costs or the giving of security therefor. This order granting
in forma pauperis status shall not extend to the
issuance and/or service of subpoenas at government expense.
further ordered that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, as
amended by the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act, the Nevada
Department of Corrections will pay to the Clerk of the United
States District Court, District of Nevada, 20% of the
preceding month's deposits to the account of Ronald
Alex Stevenson, #81847 (in months that the account
exceeds $10.00) until the full $350 filing fee has been paid
for this action. The Clerk will send a copy of this order to
the attention of Albert G. Peralta, Chief of Inmate Services
for the Nevada Department of Prisons, P.O. Box 7011, Carson
City, NV 89702.
further ordered that, even if this action is dismissed, or is
otherwise unsuccessful, the full filing fee will still be
due, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915, as amended by the
Prisoner Litigation Reform Act.
further ordered that the complaint remains dismissed in its
entirety pursuant ...