Patel v. Smith

Filing 135

ORDER denying 134 Motion to Reopen Case. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 2/5/2015. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DKJ)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8
9
10
11
12
13

DEBRA JENE PATEL-JULSON,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
PAUL SMITH LAS VEGAS, INC,
)
)
Defendant.
)
__________________________________________)

Case No. 2:12-cv-01023-CWH
ORDER

14
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Reopen (#134), filed February 4, 2015.
15
As has been noted in several prior orders, the Court recognizes that Plaintiff proceeded in this
16
matter in forma pauperis and litigated the case pro se. The Court has repeatedly acknowledged the need
17
to broadly construe pleadings and other filings submitted by Plaintiff. Nevertheless, even pro se litigants
18
must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th
19
Cir.1987); see also Jacobsen v. Filler, 790 F.2d 1362, 1364 (9th Cir.1986) (“pro se litigants in the
20
ordinary civil case should not be treated more favorable than parties with attorneys of record”); Carter v.
21
Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 784 F.2d 1006, 1008 (9th Cir.1986) (pro se litigants expected to abide by
22
the rules of the court in which litigation proceeds).
23
It appears that Plaintiff is asking the Court to reconsider its order granting summary judgment in
24
favor of defendant. Where a ruling has resulted in final judgment or order, a motion for reconsideration
25
may be construed either as a motion to alter or amend judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
26
Procedure 59(e), or as a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Federal Rule 60(b). School Dist.
27
No. 1J Multnomah County v. AC&S, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993), cert. denied 512 U.S. 1236
28
(1994). Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), a court may relieve a party from final judgment or order for

1

the following:

2

(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;

3

(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in
time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b);

4
5

(3) fraud (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic),
misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party;

6

(4) the judgment is void;

7

(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment
that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or

8
(6) any other reason that justifies relief.
9
Motions to reconsider are generally left to the discretion of the trial court, see Combs v. Nick Garin
10
Trucking, 825 F.2d 437, 441 (D.C. Cir. 1987), and, in order to succeed on a motion to reconsider, a party
11
must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior
12
decision. See Kern-Tulare Water Dist. v. City of Bakersfield, 634 F. Supp. 656, 665 (E.D. Cal. 1986),
13
aff’d in part and rev’d in part on other grounds 828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir. 1987). Rule 59(e) of the Federal
14
Rules of Civil Procedure provides that any “motion to alter or amend a judgment shall be filed no later
15
than 28 days after entry of the judgment.” A motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) “should not be granted,
16
absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered
17
evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.” Herbst v.
18
Cook, 260 F.3d 1039, 1044 (9th Cir. 2001), quoting McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 1255 (9th
19
Cir. 1999).
20
A motion for reconsideration is properly denied when the movant fails to establish any reason
21
justifying relief. Backlund v. Barnhart, 778 F.2d 1386, 1388 (9th Cir.1985). A motion for
22
reconsideration should not merely present arguments previously raised; that is, a motion for
23
reconsideration is not a vehicle permitting the unsuccessful party to reiterate arguments previously
24
presented. See Merozoite v. Thorp, 52 F.3d 252, 255 (9th Cir.1995); Khan v. Fasano, 194 F.Supp.2d
25
1134, 1136 (S.D.Cal.2001) (“A party cannot have relief under this rule merely because he or she is
26
unhappy with the judgment.”).
27
In this instance, Plaintiff has not provided any basis that would support reconsideration of the
28
2

1

Court’s order granting summary judgment. Each of the arguments raised in the motion is addressed in

2

the order or was raised in the briefing. Though Plaintiff’s frustration is understandable, merely

3

disagreeing or being unhappy with the decision is not adequate grounds for reconsideration.

4

Accordingly,

5

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Reopen (#134) is denied.

6

DATED: February 5, 2015.

7
8
9

______________________________________
C.W. Hoffman, Jr.
United States Magistrate Judge

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3