White v. Baker et al

Filing 29

ORDER denying ECF No. 23 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 12/06/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KW)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

12

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
RENE BAKER et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
___________________________________ )

13

I.

7
8
9
10
11

MATTHEW SCOTT WHITE,

3:15-cv-00262-RCJ-VPC
ORDER

DISCUSSION

14

Plaintiff has filed a motion for reconsideration on this Court’s screening order. (ECF No.

15

14, 15, 23). A motion to reconsider must set forth “some valid reason why the court should

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” Sch. Dist. No. 1J v. Acands,

21

Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). “A motion for reconsideration is not an avenue to

22

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

23

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

24

The Court has reviewed its screening order and follow up order (ECF No. 14, 15) and

25

finds that the decision is not manifestly unjust and that no clear error has been committed.

26

The Court denies the motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 23).

27

///

28

///

1
2
3

II.

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

No. 23) is denied.

4
5

th
DATED: This 6 day of December, 2016. 2016.
_____ day of November,

6
7

_________________________________
United States District Judge

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2