Antonetti v. Neven et al

Filing 23

ORDER denying 9 Motion for District Judge to Reconsider Order. Signed by Judge Kent J. Dawson on 5/14/2010. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SD)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Presently before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Reconsider (#9). Defendants filed a response in opposition (#11) to which Plaintiff replied. Having read and considered Plaintiff's motion and good cause lacking it is denied. Motions for reconsideration are committed to the discretion of the trial court. See School Dist. No. 1J. Mutlinomah County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). Where reconsideration of a non-final order is sought, the court has inherent jurisdiction to modify, alter or revoke it. See United States v. Martin, 226 F.3d 1042, 1049 (9th Cir. 2000); Glavor v. Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc., 879 F. Supp. 1028, 1032 (N.D. Cal. 1994) ("District courts are authorized to reconsider interlocutory orders at any time prior to final judgment."). Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that the Court's screening of his proposed amended complaint was in clear error. v. DWIGHT NEVEN, et al., Defendants. JOSEPH ANTONETTI, Plaintiff, Case No. 2:08-CV-01020-KJD-LRL ORDER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Reconsider (#9) is DENIED. DATED this 14TH day of May 2010.

_____________________________ Kent J. Dawson United States District Judge

2