Johnson v. Cox et al
Filing
64
ORDER that 59 Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 4/20/16. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
10
RANDY JOHNSON,
11
Plaintiff(s),
12
vs.
13
JAMES COX, et al.,
14
Defendant(s).
15
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 2:14-cv-01326-JCM-NJK
ORDER
(Docket No. 59)
16
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider. Docket No. 59. Defendants filed
17
a response in opposition. Docket No. 60; see also Docket No. 61. No reply has been filed. The Court
18
finds this motion properly decided without oral argument. See Local Rule 78-2. For the reasons
19
discussed below, the motion is hereby DENIED.
20
Motions for reconsideration are disfavored. E.g., Kabo Tools Co. v. Porauto Indus. Co., 2013
21
WL 5947138, *2 (D. Nev. Oct. 31, 2013) (citing Japan Cash Mach. Co. v. Mei, Inc., 2008 U.S. Dist.
22
Lexis 98778, *7 (D. Nev. Nov. 20, 2008)). “Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is
23
presented with newly discovered evidence; (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was
24
manifestly unjust; or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” Kabo Tools, 2013 WL
25
5947138, at *2 (quoting Frasure v. United States, 256 F. Supp. 2d 1180, 1183 (D. Nev. 2004)).
26
1
The Court construes the pending motion broadly as seeking reconsideration of both the order
2
denying without prejudice Plaintiff’s motion to file a supplemental complaint and the report and
3
recommendation that this case proceed without the claims against Defendants Baca and Donat. See
4
Docket No. 59 at 3 (referring to Docket Nos. 54 and 55). The Court finds reconsideration not proper
5
as to either the order or the report and recommendation.
6
At bottom, Plaintiff’s motion indicates that he was unable to meet certain deadlines because he
7
was in administrative segregation and lacked an instrument with which to write. See Docket No. 59 at
8
2-4. Such assertions are inapposite to the order denying Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a
9
supplemental complaint. See Docket No. 54 (noting three deficiencies with the motion, none of which
10
are addressed in the motion for reconsideration). With respect to the report and recommendation, the
11
undersigned determined that it was necessary to proceed without the claims against Defendants Baca and
12
Donat because other alternatives were not available to move the case forward given Plaintiff’s failure
13
to comply with numerous orders to file a proper amended complaint. See, e.g., Docket No. 56 at 3.
14
Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration fails to provide any indication that Plaintiff will comply with the
15
Court’s order to file a proper amended complaint with the corrected names of Defendants Baca and
16
Donat, and instead asks for yet another 60-day extension. See, e.g., Docket No. 59 at 4. In light of the
17
history of this case and the multiple opportunities to file a proper amended complaint already extended
18
Plaintiff, the Court finds there are insufficient grounds to reconsider the report and recommendation.
19
The motion for reconsideration is therefore DENIED.
20
IT IS SO ORDERED.
21
DATED: April 20, 2016
22
23
24
NANCY J. KOPPE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
25
26
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?