Rimer v. Sandoval et al
Filing
153
ORDER Denying 138 Motion to Set aside the Judgment. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 7/18/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DL)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
6
***
7
STANLEY RIMER,
8
9
10
Case No. 2:13-CV-1440 JCM (GWF)
Plaintiff(s),
ORDER
v.
BRIAN SANDOVAL, et al.,
11
Defendant(s).
12
13
Presently before the court is pro se plaintiff Stanley Rimer’s motion to set aside the
14
judgment. (ECF No. 138). Defendants, Brian Sandoval, et al., filed a response in opposition, (ECF
15
No. 139), and plaintiff filed a reply. (ECF No. 141).
16
17
In the instant motion, plaintiff requests that the court reconsider its order granting summary
judgment in favor of defendants. (ECF No. 138).
18
Under Rule 60(b), a court may relieve a party from a final judgment, order or proceeding
19
in the following circumstances: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly
20
discovered evidence; (3) fraud; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied; or
21
(6) any other reason justifying relief from the judgment. Backlund v. Barnhart, 778 F.2d 1386,
22
1388 (9th Cir. 1985); see also De Saracho v. Custom Food Mach., Inc., 206 F.3d 874, 880 (9th
23
Cir. 2000) (noting that the district court’s denial of a Rule 60(b) motion is reviewed for an abuse
24
of discretion).
25
While a motion for reconsideration allows a party to bring a material oversight to the
26
court’s attention, it is not appropriate for a party to request reconsideration merely to force the
27
court to “think about [an] issue again in the hope that [it] will come out the other way the second
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge
1
time.” Teller v. Dogge, 2013 WL 508326, at *6 n.6 (D. Nev. 2013); see also Palmer v. Champion
2
Mortgage, 465 F.3d 24, 30 (1st Cir. 2006).
3
Plaintiff fails to satisfy the legal standard to warrant the court’s reconsideration of its order
4
granting summary judgment. In his motion, plaintiff asserts that this court’s judgment is void
5
because it granted defendants’ summary judgment motion “without fair notice” to plaintiff and
6
“eliminated” rights guaranteed by precedents of the United States Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit
7
Court of Appeals.
8
Plaintiff’s claims are meritless. Plaintiff filed the complaint, actively participated in
9
litigation, filed numerous motions during the course of litigation, and filed an opposition to
10
defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff had more than fair notice that the court would
11
rule on defendants’ pending motion for summary judgment. Furthermore, plaintiff offers no
12
evidence to support his claims that this court improperly granted summary judgment in defendants’
13
favor. Plaintiff simply rehashes old arguments, refers to evidence that has already been considered,
14
and discusses previously cited authorities.
15
Accordingly,
16
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that plaintiff motion to set
17
18
aside the judgment, (ECF No. 138), be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.
DATED July 18, 2016.
19
20
__________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge
-2-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?