Cruz v. Smith et al

Filing 6

ORDER that 5 Notice of Action, construed as a Motion for Reconsideration, is DENIED. Signed by Judge Richard F. Boulware, II on 6/25/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
7
***
8
GUILLERMO TRUJILLO CRUZ,

Case No. 2:18-cv-00693-RFB-VCF

9
Plaintiff,
10
11

ORDER

v.
B. SMITH, et al.,

12

Defendants.

13
14
15

I.

DISCUSSION

16

On April 16, 2018, Plaintiff, who is a prisoner in California, filed an application to

17

proceed in forma pauperis and submitted an affidavit with exhibits. (ECF No. 1, 1-1).

18

Plaintiff did not file a complaint in this matter.

19

On April 19, 2018, the Court ordered Plaintiff to submit a complaint to the Court

20

within thirty days and warned him that the failure to timely comply with that order might

21

result in the dismissal of this case. (ECF No. 2 at 2). The thirty-day period expired and

22

Plaintiff did not file a complaint. Because Plaintiff did not file a complaint in this matter,

23

on May 31, 2018, the Court dismissed the case without prejudice and denied the

24

application to proceed in forma pauperis as moot. (ECF No. 3).

25

On June 18, 2018, Plaintiff responded to the dismissal by filing a document he

26

entitled “Notice of Action.’ (ECF No. 5). Plaintiff states that the defendant in the instant

27

case was joined in case number 1:17-cv-00789-AWI-GSA-PC, and he asks the court to

28
1

1
2

correct the error.

5
6
7
8
9

A motion to reconsider must set forth “some valid reason why the court should
reconsider its prior decision” and set “forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to
persuade the court to reverse its prior decision.” Frasure v. United States, 256 F.Supp.2d
1180, 1183 (D. Nev. 2003). Reconsideration is appropriate if this Court “(1) is presented
with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was
manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” Sch. Dist.
No. 1J v. Acands, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993).

10
11
12
13
14
15

The Court finds that there are no grounds for reconsideration. When Plaintiff filed
his application to proceed in forma pauperis, he indicated that he was filing a new case.
(ECF No. 1 at 1.) Furthermore, the case number that Plaintiff references in his most
recent filing is not a case in the District of Nevada. Accordingly, the Court denies the
motion for reconsideration.
II.

CONCLUSION

16
17

The Court construes this document as a motion for

reconsideration of its order dismissing the case.

3
4

(Id. at 1.)

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that the motion for reconsideration is
denied.

18
19

DATED this 25th day of June, 2018.

20
21

RICHARD F. BOULARE, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2