Orr v. City of Reno et al

Filing 18

ORDER denying ECF No. 17 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 2/21/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

BRANDON J. ORR,

Case No. 3:16-cv-00122-MMD-WGC
Plaintiff,

8

ORDER

v.
9
CITY OF RENO, et al.,
10
Defendants.
11
12

On January 31, 2017, the Court dismissed this action with prejudice for Plaintiff's

13

failure to comply with LSR 2-2 to notify the Court of his change of address. (ECF No. 15)

14

On February 17, 2017, Plaintiff moved for reconsideration, explaining that he had been

15

incarcerated in the North Las Vegas County Jail for traffic tickets and was not allowed to

16

make any contact with anyone or send letters or postcards. (ECF No. 17.)

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

20

F.Supp.2d 1180, 1183 (D. Nev. 2003). Reconsideration is appropriate if this Court “(1) is

21

presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial

22

decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.”

23

Sch. Dist. No. 1J v. Acands, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993).

24

On December 9, 2016. the Court issued an order to remind Plaintiff of his

25

obligations to comply with LSR 2-2 to immediately notify the Court of his change of

26

address and gave him until January 9, 2017 to comply. (ECF No. 11.) Plaintiff did not

27

comply. In his motion for reconsideration, Plaintiff appears to offer his incarceration for

28

traffic tickets as a reason for his failure to comply with LSR 2-2. However, Plaintiff fails to

1

provide the dates of his incarceration or the length of his incarceration to explain his

2

failure to comply with LSR 2-2 for over two months. Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to

3

offer a valid reason for the Court to reconsider its dismissal order. Plaintiff’s motion for

4

reconsideration (ECF No. 17) is denied.

5

DATED THIS 21st day of February 2017.

6
7
8

MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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