Turner v. Law Library et al

Filing 15

ORDER Denying 14 Plaintiff's Motion for District Judge to Reconsider Order. Signed by Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey on 05/12/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AC)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

7
8

JOHN TURNER,
Case No. 2:14-cv-163-JAD-GWF
Plaintiff,

9

ORDER

10

v.

11

LAW LIBRARY et al.,
Defendants.

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

I.

DISCUSSION
On April 21, 2014, this Court issued a screening order dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint

with prejudice in its entirety for failure to state a claim. (Doc. No. 11 at 4, 6). The Court found
that Plaintiff had failed to state a claim for denial of access to the courts because such a cause
of action only applied to non-frivolous direct criminal appeals, habeas corpus proceedings, and
42 U.S.C. § 1983 actions. (Id. at 4). However, in Plaintiff’s complaint, he had alleged the
denial of access to the courts based on his small claims lawsuits in justice court. (Id. at 3).
Specifically, Plaintiff alleged that he could not file for defaults in his small claims lawsuits
because of the law library staff’s negligence. (Id.).
On May 6, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion to reconsider. (Doc. No. 14 at 1). Plaintiff
argues that he “stated to this Court in [his] amended complaint that [his] defaults were not filed”
and that he had stated a claim in his complaint. (Id. at 1-2).

27
28

Page 1 of 2

1

A motion to reconsider must set forth “some valid reason why the court should

2

reconsider its prior decision” and set “forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to

3

persuade the court to reverse its prior decision.” Frasure v. United States, 256 F.Supp.2d

4

1180, 1183 (D. Nev. 2003). Reconsideration is appropriate if this Court “(1) is presented with

5

newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly

6

unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” Sch. Dist. No. 1J v. Acands,

7

Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). “A motion for reconsideration is not an avenue to

8

re-litigate the same issues and arguments upon which the court already has ruled.” Brown v.

9

Kinross Gold, U.S.A., 378 F.Supp.2d 1280, 1288 (D. Nev. 2005).

10

The Court denies Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration. Plaintiff reiterates that his denial

11

of access claim is based on his inability to file defaults in small claims court. Plaintiff has not

12

demonstrated that the law library staff caused him actual injury in his ability to file documents

13

in non-frivolous direct criminal appeals, habeas corpus proceedings, or § 1983 actions. See

14

Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 353 n.3, 354-55 (1996).

15

II.

CONCLUSION

16

For the foregoing reasons,

17

IT IS ORDERED that the motion for reconsideration (Doc. No. 14) is DENIED.

18
19

Dated: May 12, 2014.
Dated: May 9, 2014.

20
21
22

__________________________________
Jennifer A. Dorsey
United States District Court Judge

23
24
25
26
27
28

Page 2 of 2