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.

Williams v. Gittere

United States District Court, D. Nevada

October 25, 2019

NATHANIEL WILLIAMS, Plaintiff,
v.
WILLIAM GITTERE, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER

          MIRANDA M. DU CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         I. DISCUSSION

         On May 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 track.

         On August 8, 2019 and October 4, 2019, Plaintiff filed motions to substitute the true names of the Doe defendants. (ECF Nos. 29, 53, 54.)

         On 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.)

         The Court now addresses the motions for reconsideration and the motions to substitute.

         A. Motions for Reconsideration (ECF Nos. 30, 31, 34)

         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. 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).

         The 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.

         B. Motions to Substitute (ECF Nos. 29, 53, 54)

         In the 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.

         II. CONCLUSION

         It is 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.

         It is 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 ...


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.