Yowell v. Abbey et al

Filing 115

ORDER denying 109 motion for reconsideration. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 4/28/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA

2
3
4

RAYMOND D. YOWELL,
Plaintiff,

5

vs.

6
7

ROBERT ABBEY et al.,

8

Defendants.

9

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

3:11-cv-518-RCJ-VPC
ORDER
PROPOSED ORDER

10

This case arises out of the BLM’s seizure of Plaintiff’s cattle. Pursuant to a mandate from the

11
12
13

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, (Ninth Cir. Mem. Dispo., ECF No. 101), this Court
dismissed Defendants Robert Abbey, Helen Hankins, and Treasury-FMS, and granted summary

14

judgment in favor of Defendants Jim Connelley and Dennis Journigan, (Order, ECF No. 105, at 7).
15
16

Defendant Elko County Sheriff Jim Pitts (“Pitts”) now moves for reconsideration, (ECF No. 109), of

17

this Court’s order denying his motion to dismiss the claims asserted against him, (ECF No. 37). For

18

the reasons stated herein, the motion is denied.

19

I.

LEGAL STANDARD

20
21

A court should be loathe to revisit its own decisions unless extraordinary circumstances

22

show that its prior decision was clearly erroneous or would work a manifest injustice.

23

Christianson v. Colt Indus. Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800, 816 (1988). This principle is

24

embodied in the law of the case doctrine, under which “a court is generally precluded from

25

reconsidering an issue that has already been decided by the same court, or a higher court in the
26
27

identical case.” United States v. Alexander, 106 F.3d 874, 876 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Thomas

28

1

1
2
3
4
5

v. Bible, 983 F.2d 152, 154 (9th Cir. 1993)). Nonetheless, in certain limited circumstances, a
court has discretion to reconsider its prior decisions.
While Rule 59(e) and Rule 60(b) permit a district court to reconsider and amend previous
orders, this is an “extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of finality and
conservation of judicial resources.” Kona Enter., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th

6
7
8
9
10

Cir. 2000) (quoting 12 James William Moore, et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 59.30(4) (3d ed.
2000)) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Indeed, a district court should not grant a motion for reconsideration “absent highly
unusual circumstances, unless the court (1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2)

11
12

committed clear error, or (3) if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.” 389

13

Orange St. Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999) (citing Sch. Dist. No. 1J v.

14

Acands, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993)). A motion for reconsideration “may not be used

15
16

to raise arguments or present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been
raised earlier in the litigation.” Kona Enter., 229 F.3d at 890. Mere dissatisfaction with the

17
18

court’s order, or belief that the court is wrong in its decision, is not grounds for reconsideration.

19

Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp. v. Dunnahoo, 637 F.2d 1338, 1341 (9th Cir. 1981). A motion

20

to reconsider must set forth “some valid reason why the court should reconsider its prior

21

decision” and set “forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to persuade the court to

22

reverse its prior decision.” Frasure v. United States, 256 F. Supp. 2d 1180, 1183 (D. Nev. 2003).

23
24

Furthermore, “[a] motion for reconsideration is not an avenue to re-litigate the same issues and

25

arguments upon which the court already has ruled.” Brown v. Kinross Gold, U.S.A., 378 F. Supp.

26

2d 1280, 1288 (D. Nev. 2005).

27
28

2

1
2
3
4

II.

ANALYSIS
Defendant Pitts moves the Court to reconsider, but the Court declines, finding that he has

failed to assert an adequate basis for reconsideration. Specifically, he has neither presented
newly discovered evidence nor identified an intervening change in the controlling law. See 389

5

Orange St. Partners, 179 F.3d at 665 (A district court should not reconsider its prior orders
6
7

“unless the court (1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error, or

8

(3) if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.”). Instead, he simply reargues the

9

issues and concludes that the Court got it wrong. Such arguments do not justify reconsideration,

10

and the motion, (ECF No. 109), is therefore denied.

11

CONCLUSION

12
13
14
15

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 109) is
DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

16
17

APRIL 28, 2014
Dated: _______________________

18
19
20

____________________________________
ROBERT C. JONES
United States District Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3