Deeds v. Aranas et al

Filing 13

ORDER DENYING # 11 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 5/28/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

13

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
ROMEO ARANAS et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
___________________________________ )

14

I.

8
9
10
11
12

RICHARD DEEDS,

3:14-cv-138-RCJ-WGC
ORDER

DISCUSSION

15

On April 28, 2014, this Court issued a screening order which dismissed Counts I and II

16

(deliberate indifference and due process) with prejudice and permitted Count III (disciplinary

17

due process) to proceed. (ECF No. 7 at 7). This case entered a 90-day stay for the purpose

18

of informal settlement discussions. (ECF No. 7, 10).

19

On May 7, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration. (ECF No. 11). Plaintiff

20

argues that Counts I and II should proceed and that, in Count III, the Court should further order

21

that Plaintiff had a “liberty interest in not being charged with misconduct in the first place.” (Id.

22

at 1, 9).

23

A motion to reconsider must set forth “some valid reason why the court should

24

reconsider its prior decision” and set “forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to

25

persuade the court to reverse its prior decision.” Frasure v. United States, 256 F.Supp.2d

26

1180, 1183 (D. Nev. 2003). Reconsideration is appropriate if this Court “(1) is presented with

27

newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly

28

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). “A motion for reconsideration is not an avenue to

1

re-litigate the same issues and arguments upon which the court already has ruled.” Brown v.

2

Kinross Gold, U.S.A., 378 F.Supp.2d 1280, 1288 (D. Nev. 2005).

3

The Court has read Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration and finds that Plaintiff

4

reiterates the factual allegations he presented in his complaint. The Court does not find that

5

it committed clear error in its initial screening order or that its order was manifestly unjust. As

6

such, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration.

7

II.

8
9

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that the motion for reconsideration (ECF

No. 11) is DENIED.

10
11
12

DATED: This _____ day of May, 2014.
28th

13
14

_________________________________
United States District Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2