v. Wilson

Filing 165

ORDERED that the Motion to Reconsider (ECF No. 161 ) is DENIED. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 6/14/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

Download PDF
1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 6 7 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 8 9 10 11 Plaintiff, 3:09-cv-00166-RCJ-WGC vs. ORDER DALTON WILSON, Defendant. 12 13 Defendant Dalton Wilson moves the Court to reconsider its order of April 13, 2017, 14 denying Plaintiff’s motion for a writ of coram nobis. (See Order, ECF No. 160.) The procedural 15 history of this case and the Court’s bases for denying Defendant’s motion are detailed in that 16 order. For the reasons given herein, the Court declines to reconsider. 17 Granting a motion to reconsider is an “extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the 18 interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 19 945 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting 12 James Wm. Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 59.30[4] 20 (3d ed. 2000)). “Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with newly 21 discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or 22 (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. 23 v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). In some cases, “other, highly unusual, 24 circumstances” may also warrant reconsideration. Id. 1 of 3 However, a motion to reconsider “may not be used to raise arguments or present evidence 1 2 for the first time when they could reasonably have been raised earlier in the litigation.” Carroll, 3 342 F.3d at 945; see also United States v. Lopez-Cruz, 730 F.3d 803, 811–12 (9th Cir. 2013). 4 Moreover, “[a] motion to reconsider is not a second chance for the losing party to make its 5 strongest case or to dress up arguments that previously failed.” United States v. Huff, 782 F.3d 6 1221, 1224 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 537 (2015). Defendant has not presented a basis for the Court to reconsider its order. There is no 7 8 newly discovered evidence, the Court did not commit clear error, and there has been no 9 intervening change in controlling law. Judgment was entered in the case, and the case was 10 closed, on July 28, 2010. (ECF No. 99.) Thereafter, Defendant filed several motions seeking 11 relief from the Court’s judgment, (ECF Nos. 103, 111, 117, 118), all of which the Court denied, 12 (ECF Nos. 107, 116, 123). On November 16, 2010, Defendant appealed the last of the Court’s 13 orders denying relief under Rule 60(b), and on March 16, 2011, the Ninth Circuit summarily 14 affirmed. (ECF No. 135.) Now, Defendant continues to file motions in which he retreads the 15 same meritless jurisdictional and legal challenges that this Court and the Court of Appeals have 16 already rejected. In fact, Defendant concedes that this motion for reconsideration is merely 17 “repeating the jurisdictional and legal challenges and [sic] the officers of the court will not make 18 jurisdiction appear on the face of the record.” (Reply 2, ECF No. 164.) Accordingly, the motion is denied. In addition, Defendant is cautioned not to file further 19 20 motions in this case raising arguments which are untimely or which the Court has already 21 considered. 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 2 of 3 CONCLUSION 1 2 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Reconsider (ECF No. 161) is DENIED. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. June 14, 2017 4 5 6 _____________________________________ ROBERT C. JONES United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 3 of 3

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?