Lane v. Clark County

Filing 80

ORDER that 57 Motion for District Judge to Reconsider Order is DENIED. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 12/29/16. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

RANDEL LANE,

8
9
10

Case No. 2:11-CV-485 JCM (NJK)
Plaintiff(s),

ORDER

v.
CLARK COUNTY,

11

Defendant(s).

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

Presently before this court is plaintiff Randel Lane’s motion for this court to reconsider
Magistrate Judge Koppe’s June 28, 2016, order striking his pro se motions. (ECF No. 57).
A motion for reconsideration “should not be granted, absent highly unusual
circumstances.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000).
Reconsideration is appropriate if the district 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.” Dixon v. Wallowa County, 336 F.3d 1013, 1022 (9th
Cir. 2003); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).

20

Rule 59(e) “permits a district court to reconsider and amend a previous order,” however

21

“the rule offers an extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of finality and

22

conservation of judicial resources.” Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003)

23

(internal quotations omitted). A motion for reconsideration “may not be used to raise arguments .

24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

. . for the first time when they could reasonably have been raised earlier in litigation.” Kona
Enters., Inc., 229 F.3d at 890.
Here, Magistrate Judge Koppe correctly applied Local Rule IA 11-6, which states: “A party
who has appeared by attorney cannot while so represented appear or act in the case.” See also
Lisle v. Baker, 2016 WL 4411495, at *1 (D. Nev. Aug. 16, 2016). Plaintiff had appeared by
attorney in multiple instances prior to the magistrate judge’s ruling. See, e.g., (ECF No. 4).

1

Further, the motions struck by that order were filed by the defendant in his own capacity—not

2

through his attorney. (ECF Nos. 50–55). Yet at the time plaintiff filed those motions, he was still

3

represented by an attorney and therefore within the reach of Local Rule IA 11-6.

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

In fact, the present motion faces the same defect. (ECF No. 57). Plaintiff filed this motion
on July 22, 2016, but plaintiff’s attorney did not move to withdraw as counsel until July 26, 2016.
(ECF Nos. 57, 58). This court granted that motion on July 28, 2016. (ECF No. 59). Therefore,
plaintiff’s motion again fails due to his noncompliance with Local Rule IA 11-6.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that plaintiff’s motion to
reconsider (ECF No. 57), be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.
DATED December 29, 2016.
__________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-2-