Mittal v. County of Clark
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)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
Case No. 2:15-CV-1037-KJD-VCF
COUNTY OF CLARK, et al.,
Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend, or for Reconsideration
The Court has entered orders dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a claim.
Particularly, the Court found that Plaintiff’s claims against state defendants were barred, because his
complaint directly challenged the state court’s orders. First, Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend his
complaint is denied, because the motion fails to identify how amendment would cure the deficiencies
noted in the Court’s order. Instead of identifying what factual allegations in the proposed second
amended complaint (which is three pages longer than the seventy-two  page first amended
complaint) would cure the deficiencies, Plaintiff merely makes conclusory statements regarding
amended complaints. Therefore, his motion to amend is denied.
Second, Plaintiff seeks reconsideration asserting that he was challenging Defendants’
extrinsic fraud which led to the state court orders, not the orders themselves. However, what Plaintiff
fails to acknowledge is that the state court order was based on his admission of education neglect. He
directly challenges that order. He admits that he failed to appeal the orders of the state court despite
being represented by counsel. A motion for reconsideration should not merely present arguments
previously raised; that is, a motion for reconsideration is not a vehicle permitting the unsuccessful
party to reiterate arguments previously presented. See Merozoite v. Thorp, 52 F.3d 252, 255 (9th
Cir. 1995); Beentjes v. Placer County Air Pollution Control District, 254 F.Supp.2d 1159, at 1161
(E.D. Cal. 2003); Khan v. Fasano, 194 F. Supp. 2d 1134, 1136 (S.D. Cal. 2001) (“A party cannot
have relief under this rule merely because he or she is unhappy with the judgment.”). He has failed to
state grounds for reconsideration of the Court’s previous orders. See School Dist. No. 1J.
Mutlinomah County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993).
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend, or for
Reconsideration (#125/126) is DENIED.
DATED this 4th day of May 2017.
Kent J. Dawson
United States District Judge
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?