Moore v. Lewis et al
ORDER denying Plaintiff's ECF No. 45 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 10/25/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
MARLOS M. MOORE,
Case No. 3:15-cv-00410-MMD-VPC
SGT. LEWIS, et al.,
The Court adopted the United States Magistrate Judge Valerie P. Cooke’s Report
and Recommendation (ECF No. 37) and granted summary judgment in favor of
Defendants. (ECF No. 38.) Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration.
(ECF No. 45.) Defendants have opposed. (ECF No. 47.)
A motion to reconsider must set forth “some valid reason why the court should
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 1180, 1183 (D. Nev. 2003). Reconsideration is appropriate if this Court “(1) is
presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial
decision was manifestly 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 re-litigate the same issues and arguments upon
which the court already has ruled.” Brown v. Kinross Gold, U.S.A., 378 F.Supp.2d 1280,
1288 (D. Nev. 2005).
Plaintiff argues that he has discovered new evidence in the form of a newspaper
article published in the Las Vegas Sun discussing the problems of mold in state
buildings, including the Southern Desert Correctional Center (“SDCC”) where Plaintiff
was incarcerated. (ECF No. 45 at 3-6.) As Defendants correctly point out, however, the
Las Vegas Sun article was published in 2003 and addressed mold issues that were
remediated and does not relate to any mold issues in the housing units at SDCC. (ECF
No. 47 at 3.) Plaintiff’s claims involved ailments allegedly caused by mold in cell units at
SDCC between 2012 and 2013. (ECF No. 5 at 3-4.) In granting summary judgment in
favor of Defendants, the Court found that Plaintiff failed to provide any evidence that his
seasonable allergies were linked to mold or that mold was even present in any of the
cells where he was housed. (ECF No. 37 at 6.) The newspaper article that Plaintiff relies
on recounts mold issue in SDCC buildings in 2003 that were remediated and does not
support Plaintiff’s claim of the existence of mold in cell units at SDCC between 2012 and
2013. The information in the newspaper article does not create a genuine issue of fact to
It is therefore ordered that Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 45) is
DATED THIS 25th day of October 2017.
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?