Johnson v. State of Nevada et al

Filing 105

ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 102 Plaintiff's Motion to Reconsider is DENIED. See Order for details. Signed by Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 7/20/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MR)

Download PDF
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 FRANCIS JOHNSON, 4 Plaintiff, 5 vs. 6 STATE OF NEVADA, et al., 7 Defendants. 8 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 2:14-cv-1425-GMN-PAL ORDER 9 Pending before the Court is a Motion to Reconsider, (ECF No. 102), filed by pro se 10 11 Plaintiff Francis Johnson (“Plaintiff”).1 Defendants Officer Miguel Flores-Nava, Jennifer 12 Nash, and Sheryl Foster (collectively “Defendants”) filed a Response, (ECF No. 103), and 13 Plaintiff filed a Reply, (ECF No. 102). For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiff’s Motion is 14 DENIED. 15 I. BACKGROUND This is an inmate civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 16 17 (See Am. Compl., ECF No. 19) (Plaintiff’s amended complaint). On January 10, 2017, the 18 Court issued an Order granting Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on the ground the 19 Plaintiff had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. (Order, ECF No. 99). On February 20 6, 2017, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Reconsideration, (ECF No. 102). 21 II. LEGAL STANDARD 22 “[A] motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual 23 circumstances.” Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003). Reconsideration is 24 In light of Plaintiff’s status as a pro se litigant, the Court has liberally construed his filings, holding him to standards less stringent than formal pleadings drafted by attorneys. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). 1 25 Page 1 of 3 1 appropriate where: (1) the court is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) the court 2 committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an 3 intervening change in controlling law. School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc., 4 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). However, a motion for reconsideration is not a mechanism 5 for rearguing issues presented in the original filings, Backlund v. Barnhart, 778 F.2d 1386, 6 1388 (9th Cir. 1985), or “advancing theories of the case that could have been presented earlier, 7 Resolution Trust Corp. v. Holmes, 846 F.Supp. 1310, 1316 (S.D. Tex. 1994). Thus, Rule 59(e) 8 and 60(b) and are not “intended to give an unhappy litigant one additional chance to sway the 9 judge.” Durkin v. Taylor, 444 F.Supp. 879, 889 (E.D. Va. 1977). 10 11 III. DISCUSSION In his Motion, Plaintiff argues that the Court erred in granting summary judgment to 12 Defendants because “Plaintiff’s grievance did not need to “contain [sic] every fact necessary to 13 prove each element of an eventual legal claim,” and because he was not required to include 14 “legal terminology or legal theories.” (Mot. to Reconsider at 3, ECF No. 102). Plaintiff further 15 argues that the Court should reconsider its order because the affirmative defense of exhaustion 16 must be brought in a Rule 12 motion rather than a motion for summary judgment. (Id. at 2). 17 Plaintiff’s first argument misunderstands the Court’s Order. The Court did not find that 18 Plaintiff failed to exhaust his retaliation claim because he did not list “every fact necessary to 19 prove each element” of his claim or because he failed to provide “legal terminology or legal 20 theories.” Rather, the Court determined that his grievances failed to describe the key factual 21 basis of his retaliation claim in any detail whatsoever, and instead “merely complain[ed] of an 22 employment dispute.” (Order 10:16–19, ECF No. 99). As to Plaintiff’s second point, “the 23 appropriate device [for determination of whether administrative remedies have been exhausted 24 under the PLRA] is a motion for summary judgment under Rule 56.” Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 25 1162, 1168 (9th Cir. 2014). Page 2 of 3 1 2 The Court has reviewed its prior Order and the arguments presented by Plaintiff in his 3 Motion and has not found any reason to overturn its previous Order. The Court finds neither 4 clear error nor manifest injustice in the reasoning of its previous Order. Accordingly, 5 Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider is DENIED. 6 IV. 7 8 9 CONCLUSION IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider, (ECF No. 102), is DENIED. 20 DATED this _____ day of July, 2017. 10 11 12 ___________________________________ Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 3 of 3

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?