United States District Court, D. Nevada
HAROLD D. HARDEN, Plaintiff,
HIGH DESERT STATE PRISON, et al., Defendants.
RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
the Court are two Motions for Reconsideration filed by
Plaintiff Harold D. Harden (“Plaintiff”) (ECF
Nos. 189 & 190), and Defendant Dr. Michael Koehn
(“Koehn”)'s Supplemental Motion for Summary
Judgment. (ECF No. 197). For the reasons stated below, the
Motions for Reconsideration are denied, and the Motion for
Summary Judgment is granted.
Court adopts the background stated on the record at its prior
hearing on March 27, 2017. The parties were instructed to
brief the narrow issue of whether Koehn acted with deliberate
indifference with regard to Plaintiff's claims of a cyst
on his right arm. Plaintiff filed two Motions for
Reconsideration of the Court's prior Order on May 1,
2017. (ECF Nos. 189 & 190). Koehn filed Responses to the
Motions on May 15, 2017. (ECF Nos. 191 & 192). Plaintiff
did not file Replies. Koehn filed the instant Supplemental
Motion for Summary Judgment on June 5, 2017. (ECF No. 197).
On July 10, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Extend Time for
a Response. (ECF No. 207). No. Response was filed. The Court
granted Plaintiff an additional fourteen days to respond to
the motion on January 10, 2018 (ECF No. 217); however,
Plaintiff failed to file a Response.
Motion for Summary Judgment
judgment is appropriate when the pleadings, depositions,
answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together
with the affidavits, if any, show “that there is no
genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
56(a); accord Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S.
317, 322 (1986). When considering the propriety of summary
judgment, the court views all facts and draws all inferences
in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.
Gonzalez v. City of Anaheim, 747 F.3d 789, 793 (9th
Cir. 2014). If the movant has carried its burden, the
non-moving party “must do more than simply show that
there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts . .
. . Where the record taken as a whole could not lead a
rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party, there
is no genuine issue for trial.” Scott v.
Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007) (alteration in
original) (quotation marks omitted).
Motion for Reconsideration
long as a district court has jurisdiction over the case, then
it possesses the inherent procedural power to reconsider,
rescind, or modify an interlocutory order for cause seen by
it to be sufficient.” City of Los Angeles, Harbor
Div. v. Santa Monica Baykeeper, 254 F.3d 882, 885 (9th
Cir. 2001) (citation and quotation marks omitted). However,
“a motion for reconsideration 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.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v.
Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir.
2009) (citation omitted). A motion for reconsideration
“may not be used to raise arguments or present evidence
for the first time when they could reasonably have been
raised earlier in the litigation.” Id.
Court finds that facts presented in the Motion for Summary
Judgment are undisputed and adopts them here. The Court does
not find that Plaintiff has produced any competent evidence
to rebut the facts presented.