Anoruo v. Shinseki

Filing 144

ORDER that 134 Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 114 , 122 , and 123 Motions to Amend, 115 and 121 Motions to Recuse, and 138 Motion to Strike, are DENIED as moot. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 133 and 142 Motions for Reconsideration are DENIED as duplicative. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 7/10/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - EDS)

1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
7
JOSEPH CHIDI ANORUO,

8
9

2:12-CV-1190 JCM (GWF)

Plaintiff(s),

10

v.

11

ERICK K. SHINSEKI,

12
Defendant(s).

13
14

ORDER
Presently before the court is pro se plaintiff Joseph Chidi Anoruo’s motion for

15
16

reconsideration. (Doc # 134). Defendant Erik K. Shinseki responded. (Doc. # 140).
In the instant motion, pro se plaintiff requests that the court reconsider its order granting

17
18

summary judgment in favor of defendant, (doc. # 119).

19

I.

Legal standard

20

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), “A motion to alter or amend a judgment must

21

be filed no later than 28 days after the entry of the judgment.” The Ninth Circuit has held that a Rule

22

59(e) motion for reconsideration should not be granted “absent highly unusual circumstances, unless

23

the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is

24

an intervening change in the controlling law.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH

25

& Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting 389 Orange Street Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d

26

656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999)).

27

...

28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

1

Under Rule 60(b), a court may relieve a party from a final judgment, order or proceeding in

2

the following circumstances: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly

3

discovered evidence; (3) fraud; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied; or (6)

4

any other reason justifying relief from the judgment. Backlund v. Barnhart, 778 F.2d 1386, 1388 (9th

5

Cir. 1985); see also De Saracho v. Custom Food Mach., Inc., 206 F.3d 874, 880 (9th Cir. 2000)

6

(noting that the district court’s denial of a Rule 60(b) motion is reviewed for an abuse of discretion).

7

While a motion for reconsideration allows a party to bring a material oversight to the court’s

8

attention, it is not appropriate for a party to request reconsideration merely to force the court to

9

“think about [an] issue again in the hope that [it] will come out the other way the second time.”

10

Teller v. Dogge, 2013 WL 508326, at *6 n.6 (D. Nev. 2013); see also Palmer v. Champion

11

Mortgage, 465 F.3d 24, 30 (1st Cir. 2006).

12

II.

Discussion

13

Here, plaintiff fails to satisfy the legal standard to warrant the court’s reconsideration of its

14

order granting summary judgment. Plaintiff simply rehashes old arguments, refers to evidence that

15

has already been considered, and discusses previously cited authorities.

16

While the court acknowledges that the instant motion is pro se, and “must be held to less

17

stringent standards,” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007), plaintiff still must comply with the

18

rules of this court and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Jacobsen v. Filler, 790 F.2d 1362,

19

1364-65 (9th Cir. 1986) (holding that pro se parties are not excused from following the rules and

20

orders of the court). Thus, because plaintiff has failed to satisfy the requirements for this court to

21

reconsider its order, the court will deny plaintiff’s motion.

22

III.

23
24

Conclusion
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that pro se plaintiff Joseph

Chidi Anoruo’s motion for reconsideration, (doc # 134), be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.

25

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pro se plaintiff’s motions to amend, (docs. # 114, 122, &

26

123), motions to recuse Magistrate Judge Foley, (docs. # 115 & 121), and motion to strike (doc. #

27

138), are DENIED as moot.

28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-2-

1
2
3

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pro se plaintiff’s additional motions for reconsideration,
(docs. # 133 & 142) are DENIED as duplicative. The clerk is instructed to close the case.
DATED July 10, 2014.

4
5
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
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-3-