Denson v. Neven et al

Filing 34

ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that 33 petitioner's motion for reconsideration is DENIED. Signed by Judge Andrew P. Gordon on 7/11/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 7 8 RICHARD DENSON, 9 Petitioner, 10 vs. 11 DWIGHT NEVEN, et al., 12 13 2:15-cv-01473-APG-PAL ORDER Respondents. _____________________________/ 14 15 This action is a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus by Nevada prisoner Richard 16 Denson. The respondents are to file a response to Denson’s amended habeas petition (ECF No. 29) 17 by July 31, 2017. See Order entered May 31, 2017 (ECF No. 31) (60 days for response to amended 18 petition). 19 20 21 In its May 31, 2017, order, the Court denied a motion by Denson for appointment of counsel. See id. On June 30, 2017, Denson filed a motion for reconsideration of that order (ECF No. 33). The court “possesses the inherent procedural power to reconsider, rescind, or modify an 22 interlocutory order for cause seen by it to be sufficient,” so long as the court has jurisdiction. City of 23 L.A., Harbor Div. v. Santa Monica Baykeeper, 254 F.3d 882, 885 (9th Cir. 2001) (emphasis and 24 quotation omitted). Generally, reconsideration of an interlocutory order is appropriate “if (1) the 25 district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) the district court committed clear 26 error or made an initial decision that was manifestly unjust, or (3) there is an intervening change in 1 controlling law.” S.E.C. v. Platforms Wireless Int’l Corp., 617 F.3d 1072, 1100 (9th Cir. 2010) 2 (quotation omitted); see also Antonetti v. Skolnik, No. 3:10-cv-00158-LRH-WCG, 2013 WL 593407, 3 at *1 (D. Nev. Feb. 13, 2013) (stating that this Court applies the Rule 59(e) standard to motions for 4 reconsideration of interlocutory orders). “A motion for reconsideration is not an avenue to 5 re-litigate the same issues and arguments upon which the court already has ruled.” In re 6 AgriBioTech, Inc., 319 B.R. 207, 209 (D. Nev. 2004). Denson has not made any showing 7 supporting reconsideration of the denial of appointment of counsel. The Court remains of the view 8 that appointment of counsel is unwarranted in this case. 9 10 11 12 13 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 33) is DENIED. Dated: July 11, 2017. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 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?