Clemons v. Hayes et al

Filing 46

ORDER that 45 Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. Signed by Judge Kent J. Dawson on 3/28/13. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 9 10 DE’MARIAN CLEMONS, 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. 13 Case No. 2:10-CV-01163-KJD-GWF M.D. ROBERT CLINTON HAYES, et al., 14 ORDER Defendants. 15 16 Before the Court is Plaintiff De’Marian Clemons’s Motion for Reconsideration (#45). 17 A plaintiff may seek reconsideration pursuant to Fed. R. Civ P. 59(e) or 60(b). However, this 18 type of relief is warranted only if “extraordinary circumstances” exist. Maraziti v. Thorp, 52 F.3d 19 252, 255 (9th Cir. 1995), citing Ackermann v. United States, 340 U.S. 193, 199-201, 71 S.Ct. 209, 20 212-13, 95 L.Ed. 207 (1950); Waggoner v. R. McGray, Inc., 743 F.2d 643, 645 (9th Cir.1984). A 21 motion for reconsideration should not merely present arguments previously raised; that is, a motion 22 for reconsideration is not a vehicle permitting the unsuccessful party to reiterate arguments 23 previously presented. See Maraziti, at 52 F.3d 255; Beentjes v. Placer County Air Pollution Control 24 District, 254 F.Supp.2d 1159, at 1161 (E.D. Cal. 2003). In order for a party to demonstrate clear 25 error, the moving party’s arguments cannot be the same as those made earlier. See Glavor v. 26 Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc., 879 F. Supp. 1028, 1033 (N.D. Cal. 1994). 1 Plaintiff is representing himself pro se. Courts must liberally construe the pleadings of pro se 2 parties. See United States v. Eatinger, 902 F.2d 1383, 1385 (9th Cir. 1990). However, “pro se 3 litigants in the ordinary civil case should not be treated more favorably than parties with attorneys of 4 record.” Jacobsen v. Filler, 790 F.2d 1362, 1364 (9th Cir.1986). 5 On July 18, 2012, the Court provided notice (#41) that Plaintiff’s complaint would be 6 dismissed if Plaintiff failed to provide proof of service of the complaint on Defendants Hayes, 7 Gable, and Rhuyoa (collectively “the Defendants”). On August 8, 2012, Plaintiff filed a response 8 (#42) to the Court’s notice. Plaintiff submitted copies of subpoenas issued to the Defendants, but 9 failed to provide valid proof of service of summons and complaint as required be Fed. R. Civ. P. 4. 10 On January 16, 2013, the Court issued an Order (#43) dismissing the complaint and noted that 11 subpoenas were not the proper form of service in a civil case. 12 Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration merely reasserts Plaintiff’s contention that his 13 complaint should not be dismissed because the subpoenas constituted adequate service. As 14 explained previously, they did not. Accordingly, reconsideration is denied. 15 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (#45) is DENIED. 16 DATED this 28th day of March 2013. 17 18 19 20 _____________________________ Kent J. Dawson United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 2

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?