Banark v. Dzurenda et al

Filing 66

ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that 61 plaintiff's objection to the court's decision to close the case be, and the same hereby is, DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 64 plaintiff's motion to reopen case be, and the same hereby is, DENIED. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 12/3/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MR)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

LONNIE LEE BANARK,

8

Plaintiff(s),

9
10

Case No. 2:16-CV-2555 JCM (GWF)
ORDER

v.
JAMES DZURENDA, et al.,

11
V

Defendant(s).

12
13

Presently before the court is the matter of Banark v. Dzurenda et al., case no. 2:16-cv-

14

02555-JCM-GWF. On December 20, 2018, the court granted defendants’ motion for summary

15

judgment and dismissed plaintiff Lonnie Lee Banark’s single remaining retaliation claim. (ECF

16

No. 59). Plaintiff has filed an objection to the court’s decision to close case (ECF No. 61) and a

17

motion to reopen the case (ECF No. 64). Defendants Nathan Hughes and Holly Skulstad

18

responded to the objection (ECF No. 63) and notified the court that they considered the motion

19

to reopen the case to be a reply thereto (see ECF No. 65).

20

Ordinarily, “[t]he failure of a moving party to file points and authorities in support of the

21

motion constitutes a consent to the denial of the motion.” LR 7-2(d). However, “the standard

22

practice of federal courts is to interpret filings by pro se litigants liberally and to afford greater

23

latitude as a matter of judicial discretion.” Ricotta v. California, 4 F. Supp. 2d 961, 986 (S.D.

24

Cal. 1998). On the other hand, this court “lacks the power to act as a party’s lawyer, even for pro

25

se litigants.” Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1219 (9th Cir. 2007).

26

Plaintiff provides no basis for the court to reconsider its order granting summary

27

judgment. (ECF No. 61). Plaintiff does not argue that he exhausted his administrative remedies,

28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

1

that there has been an intervening change in law,1 or that there is newly discovered evidence. Id.

2

The court—even when liberally construing plaintiff’s motion—is compelled to deny the motion.

3

Accordingly,

4

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that plaintiff’s objection to

5
6
7
8

the court’s decision to close the case (ECF No. 61) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to reopen case (ECF No. 64) be, and
the same hereby is, DENIED.
DATED December 3, 2019.

9

__________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
1

28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

Plaintiff mentions an appeal before the Ninth Circuit and a habeas corpus proceeding
but does not explain in any way how those unrelated actions have any bearing on the instant
case.
-2-