Akers et al v. Keszei et al

Filing 326

ORDER that plaintiff Montgomery Akers motion to reconsider 317 is DENIED. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 10/4/11. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ECS)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

7
8
9
10
11
12

MONTGOMERY CARL AKERS,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
JAMES KESZEI, et al.,
)
)
Defendants. )
__________________________________________)

Case No. 2:07-cv-00572-JCM-GWF
ORDER

13
14
15

Presently before the court is plaintiff Montgomery Carl Akers’ motion to reconsider the court’s
denial of Akers’ temporary restraining order motion. (Doc. #317).

16

Plaintiff originally filed a motion for a temporary restraining order on August 1, 2011. (Doc. #297).

17

The court denied the TRO motion on August 5, 2011, stating that plaintiff had failed to request specific

18

relief and had not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits or a likelihood of irreparable injury.

19

(Doc. #300). Plaintiff then filed a renewed motion for temporary restraining order on August 29, 2011.

20

(Doc. #310). The court again denied plaintiff’s motion for temporary restraining order, finding that Akers

21

had not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits or a likelihood of irreparable injury. (Doc.

22

#312). Plaintiff then filed the instant motion to reconsider. (Doc. #317).

23

“Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with newly discovered evidence,

24

(2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening

25

change in controlling law.” School Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993); see also

26

FED. R. CIV. P. 59(e); FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b).

27

...

28

...

1

In this motion, plaintiff has not presented the court with any newly discovered evidence or an

2

intervening change in controlling law. See School Dist. No. 1J, 5 F.3d at 1263. Instead, plaintiff has

3

reasserted his prior arguments for issuing the TRO. These are not proper grounds for a reconsideration

4

motion, and plaintiff has failed to meet his burden.

5

Accordingly,

6

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that plaintiff Montgomery Akers’

7
8

motion to reconsider (doc. #317) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.
DATED October 4, 2011.

9
10
11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2