Krukowski v. LVMPD et al

Filing 15

ORDER that 14 Motion for Reconsideration is denied. FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall not file any more documents in this closed case. Signed by Judge Andrew P. Gordon on 9/27/16. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***

9

ASHTON KRUKOWSKI,

10

Plaintiff,

11
12

Case No. 2:16-cv-01701-APG-VCF
ORDER

v.
LVMPD et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
15

I.

DISCUSSION

16

On September 8, 2016, this Court dismissed Plaintiff’s case in its entirety, without

17

prejudice, for failure to file an amended complaint and an application to proceed in

18

forma pauperis in compliance with this Court’s July 22, 2016 order. (ECF No. 12 at 3).

19

The Clerk of the Court entered judgment that same day. (ECF No. 13).

20

On September 20, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration. (ECF No. 14

21

at 1). A motion to reconsider must set forth “some valid reason why the court should

22

reconsider its prior decision” and set “forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to

23

persuade the court to reverse its prior decision.”

24

F.Supp.2d 1180, 1183 (D. Nev. 2003). Reconsideration is appropriate if this Court “(1)

25

is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial

26

decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling

27

law.” Sch. Dist. No. 1J v. Acands, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). “A motion for

28

reconsideration is not an avenue to re-litigate the same issues and arguments upon

Frasure v. United States, 256

1

which the court already has ruled.” Brown v. Kinross Gold, U.S.A., 378 F.Supp.2d

2

1280, 1288 (D. Nev. 2005).

3

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration does not establish clear error, a change in

4

intervening law, or present newly discovered evidence. (See ECF No. 14). Additionally,

5

Plaintiff never addresses why he failed to file an amended complaint or an application to

6

proceed in forma pauperis in compliance with this Court’s July 22, 2016 order. As such,

7

the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration.

8

II.

9
10
11
12
13

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that the motion for reconsideration

(ECF No. 14) is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall not file any more documents in
this closed case.1
September 27, 2016.

14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

As noted in the dismissal order, Plaintiff should raise his ineffective assistance
of counsel claims in a post-conviction habeas corpus petition. (ECF No. 12 at 2 n.2).
-2-