United States District Court, D. Nevada
MIRANDA M. DU CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
10, 2019, this Court entered a 30-page screening order on
Plaintiff's third amended complaint (“TAC”).
(ECF No. 19.) The Court stayed the case and permitted the
case to proceed to mediation. (Id.) On May 16, 2019,
Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration on the screening
order. (ECF No. 20.) The Court granted the motion and
reiterated which claims were proceeding to mediation. (ECF
No. 22.) The screening order stated that during the stay,
“no other pleadings or papers may be filed in this
case, and the parties may not engage in any discovery, nor
are the parties required to respond to any paper filed in
violation of the stay unless specifically ordered by the
Court to do so.” (ECF No. 19 at 26.) The parties
participated in an early mediation conference on October 22,
2019 but did not settle. (ECF Nos. 55, 56.) The Court now
grants the application to proceed in forma pauperis
(ECF No. 1) and moves this case onto the normal litigation
August 8, 2019 and October 4, 2019, Plaintiff filed motions
to substitute the true names of the Doe defendants. (ECF Nos.
29, 53, 54.)
August 8, 2019, Plaintiff filed a 23-page motion for
reconsideration on the screening order on the TAC. (ECF No.
30.) On August 12, 2019, Plaintiff filed a 108-page motion
for reconsideration on the screening order on the TAC. (ECF
No. 31, 31-1.) On August 16, 2019, Plaintiff filed a 19-page
motion for reconsideration on the screening order on the TAC.
(ECF No. 34.)
Court now addresses the motions for reconsideration and the
motions to substitute.
Motions for Reconsideration (ECF Nos. 30, 31, 34)
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. AC&S,
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 the motions for reconsideration of the screening
order because the Court already granted Plaintiff's
motion to reconsider the screening order. (See ECF
No. 22.) The Court will not entertain successive motions for
reconsideration, particularly after granting the first motion
for reconsideration. Dietz v. Bouldin, 136 S.Ct.
1885, 1892 (2016) (“[D]istrict courts have the inherent
authority to manage their dockets . . . .”).).
Plaintiff is reminded, however, that the Court views the
allegations in the TAC in the light most favorable to
Plaintiff and takes all allegations as true during the
screening process. The Court found that Plaintiff failed to
state a claim in certain circumstances and/or dismissed
certain Defendants from the TAC without prejudice because
Plaintiff did not allege sufficient allegations to state
colorable claims. The Court notes that Plaintiff's TAC is
not the model of clarity and that it did liberally construe
Plaintiff's allegations and claims.
Motions to Substitute (ECF Nos. 29, 53, 54)
screening order for the TAC, the Court permitted several Doe
defendants to proceed and told Plaintiff that he could move
to substitute the true names of Doe defendants or move to
amend the complaint to assert the claims against Doe
defendants. (ECF No. 19 at 4 n.4.) The Court now grants the
motions to substitute the true names of Doe defendants (ECF
Nos. 29, 53, 54). The Clerk of the Court will add Michael
Minev, Harold Wickham, Bonnie, J. Herbert, Dustin, Dr.
Racoma, Frank Dreesen, and Green as Defendants to this case.
They are substituted into the case as outlined in
Plaintiff's motion at ECF No. 29.
therefore ordered that Plaintiff's application to proceed
in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1) is granted. Plaintiff
will not be required to pay an initial installment of the
filing fee. In the event that this action is dismissed, the
full filing fee still must be paid pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(b)(2). Plaintiff has paid a partial filing fee of
$95.67 (ECF No. 3) in this case.
further ordered that the movant herein is permitted to
maintain this action to conclusion without the necessity of
prepayment of any additional fees or costs or the giving of
security therefor. This order granting leave to proceed
in forma pauperis will ...