Debarr v. Carpentar et al

Filing 93

ORDERED that Debarr's Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 89 ) is DENIED. Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 7/30/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8
9

*****
BRIAN J. DEBARR,

10

Plaintiff,

11
12

3:12-CV-00039-LRH-WGC

v.
ORDER
T. CARPENTER, et al.,

13
Defendants.

14
15

Before the Court is Plaintiff Brian J. Debarr’s (“Debarr”) Motion for Reconsideration of

16
17

the Court’s January 15, 2013 Order Denying Consolidation of Cases. ECF No. 89. 1 Defendants

18

filed a Response (ECF No. 91), to which Debarr replied (ECF No. 92).
The Ninth Circuit has identified three reasons sufficient to warrant a court's

19
20

reconsideration of a prior order: (1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the discovery

21

of new evidence not previously available; and (3) the need to correct clear or manifest error in

22

law or fact, to prevent manifest injustice. School Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d. 1255,

23

1263 (9th Cir. 1993). Upon demonstration of one of these three grounds, the movant must then

24

come forward with “facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its

25

prior decision.” Donaldson v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 947 F.Supp. 429, 430 (D. Haw. 1996).
Debarr argues that the Court should reconsider its order denying consolidation of this

26
27
28

case with Gadsen, et al v. Carpenter, et al, Case No. 3:12-cv-00098-RJC-VPC, which also
1

Refers to the Court’s docket number.

1

involves the treatment of the Pagan faith at Lovelock Correctional Center. ECF No. 89.

2

However, consolidation is not appropriate in this case. First, while the instant case and Gadsen

3

are currently pending before different judges and magistrates, it is important to note that the

4

cases were both originally assigned to Judge Edward Reed. ECF No. 2 and Gadsen, ECF No. 2.

5

The cases were reassigned to their current judges on October 1, 2012. ECF No. 15 and Gadsen,

6

ECF No. 19. At no time while both cases were assigned to Judge Reed was there any motion to

7

consolidate filed by any party. Further, the lack of a jury demand in Gadsen demonstrates a

8

significant difference between the two cases, justifying a denial of consolidation. If the cases

9

were consolidated, it would result in one case being decided by two different finders of fact,

10

which would cause unnecessary confusion and would not alleviate the possibility of inconsistent

11

results. Accordingly, the Court declines to reconsider its January 15, 2013 Order. ECF No. 26.

12
13
14

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Debarr’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. #89) is
DENIED.

15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16

DATED this 30th day of July, 2016.

17

LARRY R. HICKS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2