Weddle v. Baze et al

Filing 8

ORDER denying 7 Motion for District Judge to Reconsider Order. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 3/4/16. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JC)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

12

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
BAZE et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
___________________________________ )

13

I.

7
8
9
10
11

RICHARD WEDDLE,

3:15-cv-00338-RCJ-WGC
ORDER

DISCUSSION

14

On January 26, 2016, this Court issued a screening order: (1) denying the application

15

to proceed in forma pauperis as moot; (2) dismissing the complaint in its entirety for failure to

16

state a claim; (3) directing Plaintiff to file a habeas corpus petition and an application to

17

proceed in forma pauperis in a new action; and (4) certifying that any in forma pauperis appeal

18

would not be taken in good faith. (ECF No. 4 at 5). In the screening order, the Court had

19

found that Plaintiff believed that he should be released from prison 19 months and 20 days

20

earlier than currently scheduled, thus, challenging the duration of Plaintiff’s confinement. (Id.

21

at 4).

22

On February 8, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration. (ECF No. 7). Plaintiff

23

argues that his case is not a habeas case and that he should be awarded monetary damages.

24

(Id. at 7-8). Plaintiff requests that the Court rescind the portion of its order stating that an

25

appeal would not be taken in good faith. (Id. at 8). Plaintiff asks this Court to permit him to

26

appeal the Court’s screening order. (Id.).

27

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

28

reconsider its prior decision” and set “forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to
persuade the court to reverse its prior decision.” Frasure v. United States, 256 F.Supp.2d

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

The Court denies the motion for reconsideration. After reviewing the complaint, the

8

screening order, and the motion for reconsideration, the Court finds that it did not commit clear

9

error in its screening order. Additionally, although this Court denied Plaintiff’s application to

10

proceed in forma pauperis as moot (which prevented Plaintiff from being charged $350 in this

11

dismissed action) and found that an appeal would not be taken in good faith, Plaintiff may still

12

appeal this Court’s decision. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24, Plaintiff

13

may file a separate application to proceed in forma pauperis in the appellate court. Fed. R.

14

Civ. P. 24.

15

II.

16
17
18
19

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

No. 7) is denied.
DATED: This 4th day of March, 2016.
DATED: This _____ day of February, 2016.

20
21

_________________________________
United States District Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2