Anderson v. Valenzuela et al

Filing 13

ORDER Denying 11 Motion to Reconsider 9 Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 10/17/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MR)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 9 10 ARNOLD ANDERSON, 11 Plaintiff(s), 12 v. 13 GILBERTO VALENZUELA, et al., 14 Defendant(s). 15 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 2:17-cv-02070-APG-NJK ORDER (Docket No. 11) 16 Pending before the Court is a motion for reconsideration. Docket No. 11. Motions for 17 reconsideration are disfavored. Local Rule 59-1(b). The Local Rules provide the applicable standards 18 in addressing whether the Court should reconsider an interlocutory order. In particular, reconsideration 19 may be appropriate if (1) there is newly discovered evidence that was not available when the original 20 motion or response was filed, (2) the court committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly 21 unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law. Local Rule 59-1(a). The pending 22 motion fails to meet these standards, and is DENIED. 23 Plaintiff’s motion is premised on his fear that he will not be afforded an opportunity to serve 24 Defendants in the event his case is allowed to proceed following completion of his criminal case in state 25 26 27 28 1 court. See Docket No. 11. In the event the stay of this case is lifted and the Court determines that 2 Plaintiff’s case can proceed, the Court will afford a period for service to be completed.1 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 DATED: October 17, 2017 5 ______________________________________ NANCY J. KOPPE United States Magistrate Judge 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 1 28 Plaintiff’s case may be dismissed upon completion of his criminal case if he is convicted. See Docket No. 8 at 3 (citing Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994)). 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?