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)

Download PDF
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

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?