Mittal v. County of Clark

Filing 134

ORDER denying 125 Motion to Amend/Correct.; denying 126 Motion for District Judge to Reconsider Order. Signed by Judge Kent J. Dawson on 5/4/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JM)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

9
10

RAJA MITTAL,

11

Plaintiff,

12

v.

13

Case No. 2:15-CV-1037-KJD-VCF

COUNTY OF CLARK, et al.,

14

ORDER

Defendants.

15
16
17
18

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend, or for Reconsideration
(#125/126).
The Court has entered orders dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a claim.

19

Particularly, the Court found that Plaintiff’s claims against state defendants were barred, because his

20

complaint directly challenged the state court’s orders. First, Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend his

21

complaint is denied, because the motion fails to identify how amendment would cure the deficiencies

22

noted in the Court’s order. Instead of identifying what factual allegations in the proposed second

23

amended complaint (which is three pages longer than the seventy-two [72] page first amended

24

complaint) would cure the deficiencies, Plaintiff merely makes conclusory statements regarding

25

amended complaints. Therefore, his motion to amend is denied.

26

1

Second, Plaintiff seeks reconsideration asserting that he was challenging Defendants’

2

extrinsic fraud which led to the state court orders, not the orders themselves. However, what Plaintiff

3

fails to acknowledge is that the state court order was based on his admission of education neglect. He

4

directly challenges that order. He admits that he failed to appeal the orders of the state court despite

5

being represented by counsel. A motion for reconsideration should not merely present arguments

6

previously raised; that is, a motion for reconsideration is not a vehicle permitting the unsuccessful

7

party to reiterate arguments previously presented. See Merozoite v. Thorp, 52 F.3d 252, 255 (9th

8

Cir. 1995); Beentjes v. Placer County Air Pollution Control District, 254 F.Supp.2d 1159, at 1161

9

(E.D. Cal. 2003); Khan v. Fasano, 194 F. Supp. 2d 1134, 1136 (S.D. Cal. 2001) (“A party cannot

10

have relief under this rule merely because he or she is unhappy with the judgment.”). He has failed to

11

state grounds for reconsideration of the Court’s previous orders. See School Dist. No. 1J.

12

Mutlinomah County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993).

13

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend, or for

14

Reconsideration (#125/126) is DENIED.

15

DATED this 4th day of May 2017.

16
17
18
19

_____________________________
Kent J. Dawson
United States District Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2