Rhodes-Lyons v. United States of America et al

Filing 22

ORDER Denying 19 Plaintiff's Motion for Notice of Error. Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 10/16/2012. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AC)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

9

DIANE L. RHODES-LYONS,

10

Plaintiff,

11

v.

12

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; et al.,

13

Defendants.

2:11-cv-1906-LRH-CWH
ORDER

14
15

Before the court is plaintiff Diane L. Rhodes-Lyons (“Rhodes-Lyons”) motion on notice of error

16

which the court construes as a motion for reconsideration. Doc. #19.1

17

I.

18

Facts and Procedural History
On February 7, 2012, Rhodes-Lyon filed a complaint against the United States challenging a levy

19

on her wages, salary, and other income designed to satisfy undisputed back taxes. Doc. #7. In response,

20

the United States filed a motion to dismiss (Doc. #8) which was granted in-part and denied in-part by the

21

court (Doc. #17). Thereafter, Rhodes-Lyon filed the present motion for reconsideration of the court’s

22

order. Doc. #19.

23

II.

24

Discussion
A motion for reconsideration is an “extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of

25
26

1

Refers to the court’s docket

entry number.

1

finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 887,

2

890 (9th Cir. 2000). Rule 59(e) provides that a district court may reconsider a prior order where the

3

court is presented with newly discovered evidence, an intervening change of controlling law, manifest

4

injustice, or where the prior order was clearly erroneous. FED. R. CIV. P. 59(e); see also United States

5

v. Cuddy, 147 F.3d 1111, 1114 (9th Cir. 1998); School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County v. AcandS,

6

Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993).

7

The court has reviewed the documents and pleadings on file in this matter and finds that

8

reconsideration of the court’s prior order is not warranted. In her motion, Rhodes-Lyons simply states the

9

court’s order was in error without identifying any legal or factual basis for her claim. Further, Rhodes-

10

Lyons cites to several federal tax statutes that have no bearing on the present action. As such, Rhodes-

11

Lyons has failed to identify any actual error in the court’s prior order. Accordingly, the court shall deny

12

her motion for relief.

13
14
15

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for notice of error (Doc. #19) is
DENIED.

16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17

DATED this 16th day of October, 2012.

18
19

__________________________________
LARRY R. HICKS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26

2