Leavitt v. Wickham et al

Filing 58

ORDER Denying 54 Motion for District Judge to Reconsider Order. Signed by Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 8/7/15. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - TR)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3

CODY LEAVITT,
4
5

Plaintiff,
vs.

6

HAROLD WICKHAM, et al.,
7

Defendants.

8

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 2:13-cv-00490-GMN-CWH
ORDER

9
10
11
12

Pending before the Court is the Motion to Reconsider (ECF No. 54) filed by Plaintiff
Cody Leavitt (“Plaintiff”). The motion has been fully briefed.
On February 3, 2015, this Court entered an Order granting Defendants’ Motion for

13

Summary Judgment. (See ECF No. 52). Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to

14

Reconsider.

15

“[A] motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual

16

circumstances.” Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003) (citation omitted).

17

Reconsideration is appropriate where: (1) the court is presented with newly discovered

18

evidence, (2) the court committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3)

19

if there is an intervening change in controlling law. School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County v.

20

ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). However, a motion for reconsideration is not

21

a mechanism for rearguing issues presented in the original filings, Backlund v. Barnhart, 778

22

F.2d 1386, 1388 (9th Cir. 1985), or “advancing theories of the case that could have been

23

presented earlier, Resolution Trust Corp. v. Holmes, 846 F. Supp. 1310, 1316 (S.D. Tex. 1994)

24

(footnotes omitted). Thus, Rule 59(e) and 60(b) and are not “intended to give an unhappy

25

litigant one additional chance to sway the judge.” Durkin v. Taylor, 444 F. Supp. 879, 889

Page 1 of 2

1
2

(E.D. Va. 1977).
The Court has reviewed the prior Order and the arguments presented by Plaintiff in his

3

Motion and has not found any reason to overturn this Court’s previous Order. Plaintiff appears

4

simply to claim that the Court committed clear error in its determination and attempts to

5

reargue and expound upon the issues presented previously. The Court considered and

6

addressed these issues in its prior Order (ECF. No. 52), and Plaintiff’s reiteration here does not

7

constitute facts or law of a strongly convincing nature supporting a reversal. Accordingly,

8

Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider is DENIED.

9
10
11
12

CONCLUSION
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider (ECF No. 54) is
DENIED.
DATED this 7th day of August, 2015.

13
14
15
16

___________________________________
Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge
United States District Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Page 2 of 2