Rodriguez v. McDaniels et al

Filing 59

ORDER that Plaintiff's motion for further review (ECF No. 55 ) is denied; Defendants' motion for further instruction (ECF No. 56 ) is denied as moot. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 5/6/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - LH)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

7

***

8

DARIO RODRIGUEZ,

9
10
11

Plaintiff,
v.
ADAM ENDEL, et al.,
Defendants.

12
13

and related cases
DARIO RODRIGUEZ,

14
15
16

Plaintiff,
BRIAN SANDOVAL, et al.,
Defendants.
DARIO RODRIGUEZ,

19
20
21
22

Case No. 3:16-cv-00276-MMD-CBC

v.

17
18

Case No. 3:16-cv-00143-MMD-CBC

and
Case No. 3:16-cv-00609-MMD-CBC

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

UNITED STATES SENATE, et al.,
Defendants.

23

The Court screened Plaintiff’s second amended civil rights complaint on October

24

19, 2018, and permitted some of the claims to proceed while dismissing others. (ECF No.

25

30 at 11-13.) The Court subsequently denied Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration. (ECF

26

No. 35.) Plaintiff recently filed a document titled “Motion for Further Review-Objection to

27

Reconsideration” (“Second Reconsideration Motion”). (ECF No. 55.) The Court denies

28

Plaintiff’s Second Reconsideration Motion, which appears to be an attempt to reargue the

1

dismissal of the claims in his second amended complaint.1 The Court will not entertain

2

repeated motions for reconsideration of its order.

3
4
5
6
7

It is therefore ordered that Plaintiff’s motion for further review (ECF No. 55) is
denied.
It is further ordered that Defendants’ motion for further instruction (ECF No. 56) is
denied as moot.
DATED THIS 6th day of May 2019.

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

1The

Court notes that the Second Reconsideration Motion is confusing in part as
it incorrectly refers to this action as seeking habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (ECF
No. 55 at 1).
2