Mitchell v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department

Filing 175

ORDER denying without prejudice 174 Motion for Reconsideration. Any objections to Orders 165 , 168 and 171 due by 5/8/2024. Signed by Magistrate Judge Elayna J. Youchah on 4/23/2024. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MAM)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3

***

4

RICHARD L. MITCHELL,

5

Plaintiff,

6
7
8

ORDER

v.
LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE
DEPARTMENT, et al.,
Defendants.

9
10
11

Case No. 2:18-cv-00646-RFB-EJY

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration. ECF No. 174. Through
his Motion Plaintiff appears to seek reconsideration of the following Court Orders:

12

•

ECF No. 165: Denying without prejudice Plaintiff’s Motion to be Exempt from Duty to

13

Disclose Discovery (ECF No. 162). The Court found that if Requests for Production of

14

Documents were properly propounded on Plaintiff, he was not exempt from responding

15

to the same.

16

•

ECF No. 168: Denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed Inquisition Before Jury (ECF No.

17

163). The Court found Plaintiff’s case will proceed before a jury, the well pleaded

18

complaint rule did not apply to the issues Plaintiff raised, and judicial notice does not

19

apply to the disputed claims before the Court.

20

•

ECF No. 171: The Court granted Defendants’ Motion for Clarification (ECF No. 165),

21

but found the issue raised on which clarification was sought had not been briefed through

22

motion practice and, therefore, no relief was granted. 1

23

Well settled law establishes that motions for reconsideration are “not an avenue to re-litigate the

24

same issues and arguments upon which the court already has ruled.” Brown v. Kinross Gold, U.S.A.,

25

378 F.Supp.2d 1280, 1288 (D. Nev. 2005); see also Northwest Acceptance Corp. v. Lynnwood

26

Equip., Inc., 841 F.2d 918, 925-26 (9th Cir. 1988); Motorola, Inc. v. J.B. Rodgers Mech.

27
28

Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration also references ECF Nos. 166 and 167. However, these are not Orders
entered by the Court.
1

1

1

Contractors, 215 F.R.D. 581, 582 (D. Ariz. 2003) (“reconsideration [is not] to be used to ask the

2

Court to rethink what it has already thought”). United States District Court for the District of Nevada

3

Local Rule 59-1(a) makes clear that motions for reconsideration are disfavored. Local Rule 59-1(b)

4

states: “Motions for reconsideration are disfavored. A movant must not repeat arguments already

5

presented unless (and only to the extent) necessary to explain controlling, intervening law or to argue

6

new facts.” The Rule goes on to explain that to obtain relief by way of reconsideration, the party

7

seeking such relief must demonstrate “(1) there is newly discovered evidence that was not available

8

when the original motion or response was filed, (2) the court committed clear error or the initial

9

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

10

Plaintiff’s Motion identifies no new evidence and no intervening change in controlling law

11

that warrants reconsideration of the Court’s prior rulings. Nonetheless, it appears Plaintiff is

12

complaining that he did not receive a copy of the Court’s Order at ECF No. 165 or Defendants’

13

Motion for Clarification at ECF No. 167. Plaintiff also appears to argue that the denial of his Motion

14

to be Exempt from Duty to Disclose Discovery (ECF No. 162) is appealable.

15

Plaintiff is currently housed at Three Lakes Valley Conservation Camp. The Court recently

16

learned that Three Lakes does not have a law library capable of delivering to Plaintiff copies of

17

documents electronically filed on the Court’s docket. Thus, the Court entered an Order (ECF No.

18

173) granting Plaintiff’s Motion regarding his failure to receive previously filed documents such that

19

(1) Defendants must serve Plaintiff by mail with all of their future filings, and (2) the Clerk of Court

20

is required to mail Plaintiff all future Court Orders. The Court further ordered the Clerk of Court to

21

mail ECF Nos. 165, 168, and 171 to Plaintiff’s current address. However, as stated above, the

22

Court’s Order at ECF No. 171 was favorable to Plaintiff—that is, the Court found no basis to grant

23

the relief Defendants sought. With respect to ECF Nos. 165 and 168, if Plaintiff believes he has a

24

basis to object or appeal he may do so; albeit, appeals are limited to “final decisions of the district

25

courts of the United States ….” 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Thus, the Court finds neither the decisions

26

reached in ECF No. 165 nor ECF No. 168 are likely to be appealable.

27
28
2

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (ECF

2

No. 174) is DENIED without prejudice as there is no basis for the Court to reconsider any of its prior

3

rulings.

4
5
6

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, if he chooses to do so, Plaintiff is granted through and
including May 8, 2024 to file objections to the Court’s Orders at ECF No. 165, 168, and 171.
DATED this 23rd day of April, 2024.

7
8
9

ELAYNA J. YOUCHAH
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3