United States District Court, D. Nevada
MARY S. WEST, Plaintiff,
GREG COX, et al., Defendants.
M. Navarro, Chief Judge United States District Court.
before the Court is the Motion to Reconsider, (ECF No. 51),
filed by Plaintiff Mary S. West (“Plaintiff”).
Defendants Dr. Romeo Aranas (“Aranas”), Yolanda
Campbell (“Campbell”), Beebe Clark
(“Clark”), Bob Faulkner (“Faulkner”),
Dr. Francisco Sanchez (“Sanchez”), Dr. Richard
Wulff (“Wulff”), and Jo Gentry
“Defendants”) filed a Response, (ECF No. 53), and
Plaintiff filed a Reply, (ECF No. 54). For the reasons
discussed herein, Plaintiff's Motion to Reconsider is
case arises from alleged constitutional violations that
occurred while Plaintiff was incarcerated at Florence McClure
Women's Correctional Center (“FMWCC”) in Las
Vegas, Nevada. (Second Am. Compl. (“SAC”) ¶
8, ECF No. 30). Plaintiff states six counts of Eighth
Amendment violations against Defendants for deliberate
indifference to her conditions. (Id. ¶¶
59, 64, 67, 72, 75, 79). Specifically, Plaintiff alleges she
suffered or continues to suffer from the following medical
conditions: (1) injuries to her right shoulder; (2) injuries
to her left wrist; and (3) growths on her forehead and hands.
(Id. ¶¶ 7-57).
alleges that her right shoulder was injured on August 14,
2013. (Id. ¶ 17). After her injury, Nevada
Department of Corrections (“NDOC”) medical doctor
James Holmes (“Holmes”) saw her twice a week and
provided her a sling, provided her an ace wrap, prescribed
her Tylenol, and performed an x-ray. (Id. ¶
20-21). Plaintiff alleges numerous, additional visits to
Wulff and Sanchez where they examined her, x-rayed her
shoulder, and treated her with an injection. (Id.
¶ 21-30). On March 19, 2015, Wulff ordered an MRI of
Plaintiff's shoulder, which she received on April 17,
2015. (Id. ¶ 35). Based on the MRI, Wulff
recommended surgery, which he performed on June 15, 2015.
(Id. ¶ 39-40).
this time, Plaintiff submitted kites and grievances to FMWCC
regarding her treatment. (Id. ¶¶ 23, 22).
Moreover, Plaintiff requested that family members phone
prison officials with respect to her shoulder and wrist
injuries. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that Aranas,
Gentry, Clark, and Faulkner routinely denied these grievances
and that Faulkner asked Plaintiff to stop having family
members call the office. (Id. ¶¶ 23,
alleges she injured her left wrist on June 1, 2014.
(Id. ¶ 43). The fracture was confirmed, and
Plaintiff was approved for surgery on June 3, 2014.
(Id.). Between June 30 and November 16, Plaintiff
alleges various specific instances in which Campbell, Gentry,
Clark, and Faulkner falsely informed her about the status and
scheduling of her surgery. (Id. ¶¶ 46-49,
75). During this time, Defendants Aranas, Gentry, Clark, and
Faulkner allegedly ignored Plaintiff's kites and
grievances concerning her pending wrist surgery.
(Id. ¶ 44). Ultimately, on November 12, 2014,
Holmes performed surgery on Plaintiff's wrist.
(Id. ¶ 51).
Forehead and Hand Growths
of 2014, Plaintiff submitted kites complaining of growths on
her forehead and hands. (Id. ¶ 53). Sanchez
examined the growths and determined that they were not of
concern and did not require treatment. (Mot. to Dismiss
(“MTD”) 13:11-13, ECF No. 39). Additionally,
Clark allegedly suggested that Plaintiff cover the growths on
her forehead with her bangs. (SAC ¶ 54). Plaintiff
alleges that her private physician is currently treating the
growths with Prednisone injections and Plaintiff is awaiting
a biopsy. (Id. ¶ 56).
August 8, 2017, the Court granted in part and denied in part
Defendants' motion to dismiss. (See Prior Order,
ECF No. 50) (hereinafter “Prior Order”).
Specifically, the Court found that Plaintiff failed to state
cognizable Eighth Amendment claims with respect to Counts II,
III, IV, and VI, and Count V in regard to Aranas, Sanchez,
and Wulff. (See Id. 13:1-10). Plaintiff filed the
instant Motion to Reconsider on August 23, 2017, in which
Plaintiff requests that the Court reverse its dismissal of
the aforementioned claims or, in the alternative, permit
Plaintiff to file an amended complaint. (Mot. to Recons.
motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent
highly unusual circumstances.” Carroll v.
Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003) (citation
omitted). Reconsideration is appropriate where: (1) the court
is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) the court
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, Multnomah County v.
ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993).
However, a motion for reconsideration is not a mechanism for
rearguing issues presented in the original filings.
Backlund v. Barnhart, 778 F.2d 1386, 1388 (9th Cir.
1985). Furthermore, although the court enjoys discretion in
granting or denying a motion under this rule, ...