Cottle et al v. Gillispie et al
Filing
83
ORDER that plaintiff Sean Cottles motion to reargue 79 is DENIED. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 10/25/11. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ECS)
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
6
7
8
9
SEAN COTTLE, et al.,
10
Plaintiff,
11
vs.
12
DOUG GILLESPIE, et al.,
13
Case No. 2:10-CV-00271-JCM-(PAL)
Defendants.
ORDER
14
15
Presently before the court is pro se plaintiff Sean Cottle’s motion to reargue the court’s order
16
(doc. #79) dismissing plaintiff’s case in part by dismissing defendant Gillespie and other defendant
17
officers in their official capacities (doc. # 69). Defendants have responded. (Doc. #80). Plaintiff did
18
not file a reply.
19
On July 6, 2011, the court entered an order granting in part and denying in part defendants’
20
motion to dismiss (doc. #69). The court dismissed any claims asserted against Officers Halasi and
21
O’Daniel in their official capacities, under the doctrine of sovereign immunity, because suing an
22
officer in his or her official capacity is equivalent to suing a governmental or municipal entity itself.
23
See July 6, 2011 order, Doc. #69 (citing Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159 (1985)). In addition, the
24
court dismissed claims against Gillespie in his official capacity because the claims against Gillespie
25
were duplicative of the plaintiff’s claims against LVMPD. Id. (citing Scott v. Las Vegas Metro
26
Police Dep’t., 2:10-CV-01900-ECR, 2011 WL 2295178 (D. Nev. June 8, 2011)). Further, the court
27
dismissed claims against Gillespie in his individual capacity because plaintiff failed to allege any
28
1
personal involvement by Gillespie in plaintiff’s arrest or incarceration, or that Gillespie had
2
negligently trained or supervised the officers. See id.
3
On July 18, 2011, plaintiff filed a motion to reconsider the July 6, 2011, order. (Doc. #70).
4
On July 25, 2011, prior to this court’s ruling on the motion to reconsider, plaintiff filed a notice of
5
appeal, seeking review of the July 6, 2011, order by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. On
6
September 7, 2011, the court entered an order denying plaintiff’s motion to reconsider because the
7
plaintiff’s appeal divested the court of jurisdiction to reconsider the July 6, 2011, order. (Doc. #78).
8
On October 18, 2011, the court granted plaintiff’s motion seeking to voluntarily withdraw his
9
appeal. (Doc #82). Thus, the court will look at the instant motion as a renewed motion to reconsider
10
because this court now has jurisdiction.
11
“Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with newly discovered
12
evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an
13
intervening change in controlling law.” School Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th
14
Cir. 1993); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Furthermore, review of
15
dismissal for failure to state a claim is limited to the contents of the complaint. Sprewell v. Golden
16
State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir. 2001).
17
The plaintiff fails to present any new law, new facts, or new evidence indicating that any of
18
the circumstances enumerated by the Ninth Circuit are present here. In the present motion for
19
reconsideration, plaintiff asks this court to reconsider its order (doc. #69), because Gillespie, must
20
be held accountable for the conduct of his subordinates. Plaintiff, however, has failed to provide any
21
basis for this court to reconsider its previous order. Accordingly, this court must again deny the
22
motion to reconsider.
23
Therefore,
24
...
25
...
26
...
27
...
28
-2-
1
2
3
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED ADJUDGED AND DECREED that plaintiff Sean Cottle’s
motion to reargue (doc. #79) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.
DATED October 25, 2011.
4
5
_________________________________
JAMES C. MAHAN
United States District Judge
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?