Bell v. Core Civic et al

Filing 119

ORDER Denying 106 Motion and 113 Motion to Reopen Case. Signed by Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey on 1/4/2022. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JQC)

Case 2:17-cv-02709-JAD-BNW Document 119 Filed 01/04/22 Page 1 of 2

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 Cameron Bell,
4

Plaintiff

5 v.

Case No.: 2:17-cv-02709-JAD-BNW
Order Denying Motions to Reopen
Case and for Relief from Judgment

6 Core Civic, et al.,
7

[ECF Nos. 106, 113]

Defendants

8

Nearly two years ago, this court granted summary judgment against Plaintiff Cameron

9 Bell in his lawsuit against Core Civic and several of its employees for injuries that he claims he
10 sustained because a corrections officer let a door close on his neck. 1 Bell moved to alter or
11 amend that judgment, arguing among other things that a video of a closing door, which the
12 defendants presented to show that the door moved too slowly to cause the harm that Bell
13 claimed, was not a video of the incident itself. He also contended that the defendants had
14 “knowledge of video footage of the incident and failed to present” it based on excuses about
15 prison-security concerns. 2 The court denied that motion, 3 and Bell appealed to the Ninth Circuit,
16 which affirmed in all respects. 4
17

Bell has since filed two more motions seeking relief from the judgment. 5 In the first, he

18 reiterates his challenge to the video of the door closing, this time characterizing the presentation
19
20

22
23

1

ECF No. 78 (order granting summary judgment).

2

21

ECF No. 80 at 3–4 (motion to alter or amend judgment).

3

ECF No. 93 (order denying Rule 59 motion).

4

ECF No. 105 (Ninth Circuit memorandum).

5

ECF Nos. 106, 113.

Case 2:17-cv-02709-JAD-BNW Document 119 Filed 01/04/22 Page 2 of 2

1 of that video and the failure to turn over video of the incident as a “fraud” on the court. 6 In the
2 second, he argues that the respondents’ failure to oppose that motion constitutes their consent to
3 grant it. 7 As the defendants point out in their opposition to Bell’s first motion, his video4 evidence argument is a regurgitation of his earlier points, which have been repeatedly rejected by
5 this court and now the Ninth Circuit. 8 And although Local Rule 7-2 permits the court to deem a
6 party’s failure to respond to a motion as their consent to grant it, the defendants did respond to
7 Bell’s motion, 9 so Rule 7-2 does not apply here. Because Bell has provided no valid basis for
8 relief from this final judgment that has been affirmed on appeal, I deny his motions.
9

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Bell’s Motion for Leave to Reopen Case to File

10 Motion Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(3) and 60(d)(3), and his Motion for a Court
11 Order to Grant Motion for Leave to Reopen Case to File Motion under Fed. R. Civ. P 60(b)(3)
12 and (d)(3) [ECF Nos. 106, 113] are DENIED.
13

_______________________________
U.S. District Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey
January 4, 2022

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

6

ECF No. 106 at 2–4.

7

ECF No. 113 at 2.

8

ECF No. 111 (defendants’ response to motion for leave to reopen case to file motion under
23 FRCP 60(b)(3)).
9

See id.
2