Rimer v. State of Nevada ex rel Nevada Department of Corrections et al

Filing 257

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 231 Motion to Reconsider Magistrate Judge Order. Plaintiff has not established good cause for an extension of time or for enlargement of the number of requests for admissions. Signed by Judge Richard F. Boulware, II on 9/14/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***

9

STANLEY RIMER,

Case No. 2:14-cv-00889-RFB-CWH

10

Plaintiff,

11
12
13

v.

ORDER
DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION
TO
RECONSIDER
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S ORDER

STATE OF NEVADA ex rel NEVADA
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS et al.,
Defendants.

14
15

Before the Court for consideration is Plaintiff Stanley Rimer (“Plaintiff”)’s Motion to

16

Reconsider the Magistrate Judge’s order denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time and

17

Motion for Enlargement of Number of Requests for Admissions. ECF No. 231.

18
19
20
21

I.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The Court incorporates the procedural background from its order of March 28, 2017, denying
Plaintiff’s earlier Motion to Reconsider. ECF No. 244.

22
23
24
25

II.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The Court incorporates the factual background from its order of March 28, 2017, denying
Plaintiff’s earlier Motion to Reconsider. ECF No. 244.

26
27
28

III.

LEGAL STANDARD

“As long as a district court has jurisdiction over the case, then it possesses the inherent

1

procedural power to reconsider, rescind, or modify an interlocutory order for cause seen by it to

2

be sufficient.” City of Los Angeles, Harbor Div. v. Santa Monica Baykeeper, 254 F.3d 882, 885

3

(9th Cir. 2001) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Whether or not to grant

4

reconsideration is committed to the sound discretion of the court.” Navajo Nation v. Confederated

5

Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Indian Nation, 331 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th Cir. 2003). However,

6

“a motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless

7

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

8

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

9

GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation and citation omitted). A motion

10

for reconsideration “may not be used to raise arguments or present evidence for the first time when

11

they could reasonably have been raised earlier in the litigation.” Id. (internal quotation and citation

12

omitted). “Motions for reconsideration are disfavored. A movant must not repeat arguments

13

already presented unless (and only to the extent) necessary to explain controlling, intervening law

14

or to argue new facts. A movant who repeats arguments will be subject to appropriate sanctions.”

15

LR 59-1. “A document filed pro se is ‘to be liberally construed,’ and ‘a pro se complaint, however

16

inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by

17

lawyers[.]’” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2003) (citations omitted).

18
19

IV.

DISCUSSION

20

In an order dated November 28, 2016, Magistrate Judge Carl Hoffman entered an order

21

denying Plaintiff’s requests for extension of time and for enlargement of number of requests for

22

admissions. ECF No. 231. Following an order to serve Defendants with revised requests for

23

admissions by October 17, 2016, Plaintiff allegedly attempted to re-serve Defendants with

24

unrevised requests for admissions close to the deadline. Magistrate Judge Hoffman found that

25

Local Rule 26-4 requires a request to extend a scheduled deadline for discovery to specify reasons

26

why the deadline was not met, and provide good cause for an extension. In the instant Motion,

27

Plaintiff argues that he specified good cause both for why the deadline for requests for admission

28

could not be met, and for the request for extension of time. He asserts the Due Process Clause of

-2-

1

the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution as grounds for good cause. Plaintiff

2

also argues that irreparable damage will result should the Court not reconsider the Magistrate

3

Judge’s order, as he will be prevented from discovering the truth and restricted in his ability to

4

prepare for a jury trial. Plaintiff contends that a limit of thirty total requests for admissions is

5

inadequate, as there are “over 30 documents involved in this case, numerous defendants, numerous

6

issues [and] grievances . . . .” ECF No. 231. In Plaintiff’s Motions for Extension of Time to

7

Resubmit Requests for Admissions and for Enlargement of Number of Requests for Admissions,

8

Plaintiff asked the Court to allow 25 requests for admissions per Defendant. ECF Nos. 225, 226.

9

The Court does not find that Plaintiff presents any compelling grounds for reconsideration. He

10

does not present newly discovered evidence, show that the Magistrate Judge committed clear error,

11

or demonstrate an intervening change in controlling law such that reconsideration of the Magistrate

12

Judge’s order is warranted. Although the Court liberally construes the Motion, it does not find

13

good cause of an extension of time or for an enlargement of the number of requests for admission.

14

Merely alleging that the Court is infringing upon Plaintiff’s right to Due Process is not sufficient

15

to establish good cause to permit Plaintiff to serve 25 requests for admissions on every defendant

16

in the case.

17
18

V.

CONCLUSION

19

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider Magistrate Judge’s Order

20

(ECF No. 231) is DENIED, as Plaintiff has not established good cause for an extension of time or

21

for enlargement of the number of requests for admissions.

22
23

DATED this 14th day of September, 2017.

24
___________________________________
RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

25
26
27
28

-3-