Hendrix v. State of Nevada et al

Filing 22

ORDER denying ECF No. 21 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb on 6/30/16. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JC)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8
9
10
11
12
13

JAMAL DAMON HENDRIX,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
STATE OF NEVADA, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
______________________________________)

3:15-cv-00155- MMD-WGC
ORDER
Re: ECF No. 21

14
15

Before the court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 21). Plaintiff seeks the court

16

to reverse its order (ECF No. 20) denying Plaintiff’s earlier motion (ECF No. 19) to exclude his civil

17

rights litigation from the Inmate Mediation Program. The court’s denial of Plaintiff’s motion to exclude

18

was based upon Plaintiff’s failure to provide any factual or legal basis as to why his action should be

19

exempted from the Inmate Early Mediation Conference Program.

20

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration for the first time presents several arguments for excluding

21

this case from the mediation process. The first is that a mediator in one of three other civil right cases

22

Plaintiff has pending, James A. Kohl, is alleged to have “fabricated lies” (ECF No. 21 at 2, citing

23

Hendrix v. Cox, et al., 2:15-cv-0056-MMD-NJK). Plaintiff asserts that in another civil rights case in

24

which he had a mediation, Hendrix v. State of Nevada, 3:15-cv-00460-MMD-WGC, mediator “Jennifer

25

H. Rains had fabricated throughout the session” and that Deputy Attorney General Fran Toddre “never

26

participated in this mediation Conference.” (ECF No. 21 at 2, 3.)1 Last, Plaintiff suggests a mediation

27
28

1

The docket reflects Defendants were represented by Deputy Attorney General Heather Zana (3:15,cv-460-MMDWGC at ECF No. 11).

1

in this matter may subject him to possible further alleged disciplinary or retaliatory action by the Warden

2

(id. at 3).

3

Motions for reconsideration of an interlocutory order2 must state with particularity the points of

4

law or fact that the court has overlooked or misunderstood in its underlying order. LR 59-1(a).

5

Reconsideration may be appropriate (1) if there is newly discovered evidence that was not available

6

when the original motion was filed, (2) the court committed clear error or the initial decision was

7

manifestly unjust, or (3) there is an intervening change in controlling law (id).

8

reconsideration are disfavored. LR 59-1(b).

Motions for

9

The “evidence” Plaintiff now presents is not newly discovered as these “facts” predated the filing

10

of Plaintiff’s initial motion. Furthermore, without any specifics presented by Plaintiff that the mediators

11

participating in the court’s mediation program were guilty of fabricating evidence or facts, the court is

12

disinclined to accept Plaintiff’s argument in that respect. With regard to the possibility of further

13

disciplinary actions which may result because of any settlement, the court notes that Plaintiff has already

14

made multiple accusations against the Defendants, including the Defendant Warden, and does not

15

foresee how any discussion of possible compromise or settlement of those claims could supposedly lead

16

to greater reprisal above and beyond any which might occur because of the allegations of his amended

17

complaint (ECF No. 13).

18

The court did not commit “clear error” in its initial decision nor would requiring Plaintiff to

19

participate in the court’s Inmate Early Mediation Program be “manifestly unjust.” District Judge

20

Miranda M. Du has referred this case to the court’s Inmate Early Mediation program (ECF No. 17 at 27).

21

The court perceives no reason not to implement the directions of Judge Du.

22

Plaintiff’s motion (ECF No. 21) is therefore DENIED.

23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24

DATED: June 30, 2016.

25

____________________________________
WILLIAM G. COBB
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

26
27
28

2

This court’s order denying Plaintiff’s motion to exclude (ECF No. 20) would be considered an interlocutory order.

2