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)
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?