United States District Court, D. Nevada
before the court is pro se plaintiff's motion
for reconsideration. (ECF No. 73). Defendants Minor Adams, J.
Calderon, James Cox, Francis Dreesen, Sheryl Foster, Jo
Gentry, Brian Henley, Wes Mattice, Jennifer Nash, Dwight
Nevins, Greg Smith, Richard Snyder, James Stogner, Brian
Williams, Jason Yelle, and Johnny Youngblood filed a
response. (ECF No. 76). Plaintiff Randy Johnson has not filed
a reply, and the period to do so has since passed.
before the court are plaintiff's motion to strike (ECF
No. 74) and motion to receive docket sheet (ECF No. 75).
is an inmate currently in the custody of the Nevada
Department of Corrections (“NDOC”). Plaintiff
alleges that he is a declared member of Islam. (ECF No. 5 at
6). Plaintiff's complaint alleges numerous civil rights
claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against multiple
defendants for events that took place while plaintiff was
incarcerated at the Southern Desert Correctional Center, Warm
Springs Correctional Center, and High Desert State Prison.
(ECF No. 5).
December 1, 2014, the court screened plaintiff's amended
complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and determined
that the following claims were sufficiently pleaded to
proceed: (I) free exercise clause and equal protection clause
violations against Snyder and Smith; (II) & (III)
retaliation against Henley and Smith; (IV) free exercise
clause and equal protection violations against Cox, Smith,
Mattic, Williams, Nevens, Nash, Dreesen, Gentry, Stogner,
Snyder, Calderon, and Youngblood; (V) free exercise clause
violations against Cox, Williams, Nevens, Gentry, Nash,
Smith, Mattic, Snyder, Calderon, Stogner, Adams, Baca, Donae,
and Youngblood; (VI) retaliation and free exercise clause
violations against Snyder and Smith; (VII) free exercise
clause and equal protection violations against Nevens, Nash,
and Calderon; (VIII) retaliation and free exercise clause
violations against Smith, Mattice, and Snyder; (IX)
retaliation, free exercise clause, and Religious Land Use and
Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”)
violations against Yelle, Williams, Gentry, Adams, and
Foster; and (X) retaliation, free exercise clause and RLUIPA
violations against Snyder, Mattice, and Smith. (ECF No.
March 22, 2017, the court granted defendants' motion for
summary judgment (ECF No. 70), dismissing plaintiff's
claims for failure to exhaust his administrative remedies.
(ECF No. 71).
instant motion, plaintiff moves for reconsideration of the
court's March 22nd order. (ECF No. 73).
motion for reconsideration “should not be granted,
absent highly unusual circumstances.” Kona Enters.,
Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir.
2000). “Reconsideration is appropriate if the district
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.” School Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS,
Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993); Fed.R.Civ.P.
60(b). “A motion to alter or amend a judgment must be
filed no later than 28 days after the entry of the
judgment.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e).
59(e) “permits a district court to reconsider and amend
a previous order[;]” however, “the rule offers an
extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests
of finality and conservation of judicial resources.”
Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir.
2003) (internal quotations omitted). A motion for
reconsideration “may not be used to raise arguments . .
. for the first time when they could reasonably have been
raised earlier in litigation.” Kona Enters.,
Inc., 229 F.3d at 890; see also LR 59-1(b)
(“Motions for reconsideration are disfavored. A movant
must not repeat arguments already presented unless (and only
to the extent) necessary to explain controlling, intervening
law or to argue new facts. A movant who repeats arguments
will be subject to appropriate sanctions.”).
sets forth five reasons for reconsideration: (1) he has not
received a “Klingele notice”; (2) he has not
received a docket sheet of his case; (3) he requested trial
by jury; (4) defendants lied about numerous facts; and (5) he
is still suffering retaliation. (ECF No. 73 at 2- 3).
court finds that plaintiff has failed to show that
reconsideration is warranted. Specifically, plaintiff has not
presented any newly discovered evidence, shown any clear
error, or any intervening change in controlling law. See
School Dist. No. 1J, 5 F.3d at 1263.
plaintiff's assertions to the contrary, he received
notice regarding the requirements of Klingele v.
Eikenberry and Rand v. Rowland. (See
ECF No. 33). Although plaintiff requested a jury trial, he
must show the existence of factual disputes so as to warrant
trial on the merits. Further, while plaintiff asserts that