Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Antonetti v. McDaniels

United States District Court, D. Nevada

April 25, 2017

JOSEPH ANTONETTI, Plaintiff,
v.
E.K. MCDANIELS et al., Defendants.

          ORDER

          MIRANDA M. DU, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         I. DISCUSSION

         On April 5, 2017, this Court issued a screening order which permitted some claims to proceed, dismissed some claims with prejudice, and dismissed other claims with leave to amend. (ECF No. 3 at 20-21.) The Court granted Plaintiff thirty (30) days to file an amended complaint. (Id. at 22.)

         On April 19, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration on Counts IV, VII, XII, and XIII. (ECF No. 5 at 1-2, 5.) Plaintiff sought reconsideration on those counts but noted that he was doing what he believed was “required to secure appeal.” (Id. at 6.) On April 24, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of time to file his amended complaint. (ECF No. 6.)

         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).

         A. Count IV

         In Count IV of the complaint, Plaintiff challenged the prices of writing supplies at the canteen and alleged that he had been forced to end personal relations due to the expense of letter correspondence. (ECF No. 1-1 at 17.) In the screening order, the Court analyzed the allegations as an Equal Protection Claim and found that Plaintiff failed to state a claim because neither inmates nor the poor were protected classes. (ECF No. 3 at 10.) In the motion for reconsideration, Plaintiff argued that the excessive costs of stamps and pens prevented him from corresponding with friends and violated his First Amendment right to communicate by mail. (ECF No. 5 at 1.)

         The Court finds that it did not commit clear error in the screening order. Although prisoners have a First Amendment right to send and receive mail, Plaintiff has not established that he has a First Amendment right for the prison to provide supplies cheap enough for him to continue corresponding with his friends. As such, the Court denies the motion for reconsideration on this count.

         B. Count VII

         In Count VII of the complaint, Plaintiff alleged that the state-run-inmate canteen engaged in price gauging and had a monopoly. (ECF No. 1-1 at 22-23.) In the screening order, the Court dismissed the equal protection claim because inmates were not a protected class and Defendants appeared to charge all inmates the same prices. (ECF No. 3 at 12.) In the motion for reconsideration, Plaintiff argued that “[r]obbery of all inmates through monopoly, price gauging, should not permit N.D.O.C. to evade justice.” (ECF No. 5 at 2.)

         The Court denies the motion for reconsideration on this count. Plaintiff has not provided any argument demonstrating that the Court committed clear error in its initial decision.

         C. Count XII

         In Count XII of the complaint, Plaintiff argued that Defendants' use of wrist restraints and ankle shackles to cause open wounds on Plaintiff violated Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference. (ECF No. 1-1 at 34.) In the screening order, the Court interpreted the Eighth Amendment violation as a claim for excessive force and found that Plaintiff failed to state a claim. (ECF No. 3 at 16-17.) In the motion for reconsideration, Plaintiff argued that the Eighth Amendment claim was for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs and not excessive force. (ECF No. 5 at 3.)

         The Court grants Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration in part for Count XII. In viewing Count XII as a claim for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs rather than excessive ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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