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)

Download PDF
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?