Campana v. Nevada Department of Corrections et al

Filing 29

ORDER denying 20 Motion for District Judge to Reconsider Order. Stay remains in effect. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 4/12/16. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JC)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

COREY MATTHEW CAMPANA,
Plaintiff,

9
10
11

v.
NORTHERN DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, et al.,

12
Defendants.
13

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

3:15-cv-00214-RCJ-WGC
ORDER

___________________________________
14
Plaintiff has submitted a motion for reconsideration. (ECF No. 20). Plaintiff asserts the
15
Court should reconsider its dismissal of defendants Oxborrow, Sandoval, Jones, and
16
Schuering. (Id. at 1).
17
A motion to reconsider must set forth “some valid reason why the court should
18
reconsider its prior decision” and set “forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to
19
persuade the court to reverse its prior decision.” Frasure v. United States, 256 F.Supp.2d
20
1180, 1183 (D. Nev. 2003). Reconsideration is appropriate if this Court “(1) is presented with
21
newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly
22
unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” Sch. Dist. No. 1J v. Acands,
23
Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). “A motion for reconsideration is not an avenue to
24
re-litigate the same issues and arguments upon which the court already has ruled.” Brown
25
v. Kinross Gold, U.S.A., 378 F.Supp.2d 1280, 1288 (D. Nev. 2005).
26
In its screening order, the Court dismissed defendant Schuering because Plaintiff
27
declined to follow his direction to gargle with salt water three times daily. (ECF No. 17 at 8:1828

1

20). The Court noted Plaintiff’s claim “is a disagreement with the treatment regimen sounding

2

in professional malpractice.” (Id. at 8:19-20). Plaintiff asserts his claim should be permitted

3

to proceed against defendant Schuering because defendant Schuering did not provide him

4

with salt.

5

Plaintiff’s new assertion concerning his lack of salt is insufficient to vitiate the Court’s

6

conclusions. A showing of deliberate indifference requires a purposeful act or failure to

7

respond to a prisoner’s pain or medical need. See Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th

8

Cir. 2006). Plaintiff does not allege defendant Schuering had any idea that Plaintiff lacked

9

salt, nor does Plaintiff allege that he requested salt to follow defendant Schuering’s directive

10

and that he was denied that request. Plaintiff does not otherwise demonstrate a purposeful

11

act or failure on defendant Schuering’s part to respond to his need. As such, Plaintiff’s motion

12

for reconsideration as to defendant Schuering is denied.

13

Plaintiff contends that defendants Oxborrow, Sandoval, and Jones should not have

14

been dismissed because he disputes the Court’s analysis that these individuals had no

15

authority to make the decision to provide him the treatment he desired. (ECF No. 20 at 4).

16

Plaintiff asserts these individuals should have requested aid from the White Pine County

17

Sheriff’s Office. (Id.). As the Court stated in the screening order, a fair inference cannot be

18

drawn that any of these individuals had the authority or the power to provide Plaintiff the relief

19

he requested. (See ECF No. 17 at 6:24-7:7). Plaintiff’s motion provides no basis, factual or

20

otherwise, to dispute this conclusion. Plaintiff is thus attempting to re-litigate the same issues

21

and arguments upon which the Court has already ruled. As such, Plaintiff’s motion for

22

reconsideration as to defendants Oxborrow, Sandoval, and Jones is denied.

23

///

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///
2

1
2
3

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration
(ECF No. 20) is DENIED.

4

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the stay issued in the Court’s previous order (ECF No.

5

17) remains in effect. The parties are directed to refer to that order for all deadlines and

6

pertinent information concerning the further progression of this case.

7
8
9

DATED: This 12th day of April, 2016.
DATED: This _____ day of April, 2016.
_________________________________
United States District Judge

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3