Wilkins v. Douglas Co. Sheriff's Office et al

Filing 19

ORDER DENYING 17 Plaintiff's Motion to Vacate and 18 Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 8/23/2012. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - HJ)

1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6
7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***

9
10

WILLIAM J. WILKINS,
Plaintiff,

11
12
13
14

Case No. 3:11-cv-00830-MMD-VPC

ORDER
(Motion to Vacate – dkt. no. 17)
(Motion for Reconsideration – dkt. no. 18)

v.
DOUGLAS COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE,
et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

I.

SUMMARY

18

Before the Court are Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate the District Court’s Order

19

Regarding the Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation (dkt. no. 17) and Motion for

20

Reconsideration (dkt. no. 18). Both Motions request the same relief: that the Court

21

vacate its July 12, 2012, Order Regarding the Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation

22

(dkt. no. 15) and review Plaintiff’s already-filed first amended complaint (dkt. no. 11).

23

Therefore, the two Motions are treated as a single Motion for the purposes of this Order.

24

For the reasons discussed below, the Motions are denied.

25

II.

BACKGROUND

26

Plaintiff, a pro se litigant, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint alleging that

27

Defendants failed to properly treat his medical conditions while he was imprisoned at the

28

Northern Nevada Correctional Center. (Dkt. no. 1-1.) On July 12, 2012, this Court

1

issued an Order Adopting the Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation (“R & R”) in

2

part and directing Plaintiff to file a first amended complaint. (Dkt. no. 15.) Plaintiff

3

argues that he had addressed the defects discussed in the R & R in an already-filed First

4

Amended Complaint (dkt. no. 11). However, as this Court noted on page 5 of its Order

5

Regarding the Magistrate’s R & R, the first amended complaint was improperly filed and

6

was not considered by the Court.

7

complaint as set forth in the Order. (Dkt. no. 15 at 5.)

8

III.

9

Plaintiff was instructed to file a first amended

DISCUSSION
A.

Legal Standard

10

Although not mentioned in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, motions for

11

reconsideration may be brought under 60(b).1 Under Rule 60(b), a court may relieve a

12

party from a final judgment, order or proceeding only in the following circumstances: (1)

13

mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence;

14

(3) fraud; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied; or (6) any other

15

reason justifying relief from the judgment. Stewart v. Dupnik, 243 F.3d 549, 549 (9th Cir.

16

2000); see also De Saracho v. Custom Food Mach., Inc., 206 F.3d 874, 880 (9th Cir.

17

2000) (noting that the district court’s denial of a Rule 60(b) motion is reviewed for an

18

abuse of discretion).

19

A motion for reconsideration must set forth the following: (1) some valid reason

20

why the court should revisit its prior order; and (2) facts or law of a “strongly convincing

21

nature” in support of reversing the prior decision. Frasure v. United States, 256 F. Supp.

22

2d 1180, 1183 (D. Nev. 2003). On the other hand, a motion for reconsideration is

23

properly denied when the movant fails to establish any reason justifying relief. Backlund

24

v. Barnhart, 778 F.2d 1386, 1388 (9th Cir. 1985) (holding that a district court properly

25

denied a motion for reconsideration in which the plaintiff presented no arguments that

26
27
28

1

Motions for reconsideration may also be brought under Rules 59(e). However,
Plaintiff files his Motion under Rule 60(b). (Dkt. no. 18 at 1.)
2

1

were not already raised in his original motion). Motions for reconsideration are not “the

2

proper vehicles for rehashing old arguments,” Resolution Trust Corp. v. Holmes, 846 F.

3

Supp. 1310, 1316 (S.D. Tex. 1994) (footnotes omitted), and are not “intended to give an

4

unhappy litigant one additional chance to sway the judge.” Durkin v. Taylor, 444 F.

5

Supp. 879, 889 (E.D. Va. 1977).

6

B.

ANALYSIS

7

Plaintiff does not argue any newly discovered evidence exists or that there has

8

been any change in the applicable law. Further, the Court’s decision was not manifestly

9

unjust. The Court allowed Plaintiff to re-allege all of his plausible causes of action in an

10

amended complaint.

11

accordance with the terms of this Court’s previous Order discussing his complaint. (dkt.

12

no. 15).

13

IV.

14
15
16
17

Plaintiff is instructed to file a first amended complaint in

CONCLUSION
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate (dkt. no. 17) is

DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (dkt. no.
18) is DENIED.

18
19

DATED THIS 23rd day of August 2012.

20
21
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3