Polk v. Jones et al
ORDER denying ECF No. 10 Motion for Reconsideration and/or Relief from Judgment. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 01/03/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KW)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
RENARD T. POLK,
Case No. 3:16-cv-00250--MMD-WGC
ROBERT JONES, et al,
The Court adopted the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation,
recommending dismissal of this action because Plaintiff is essentially seeking to
challenge and vacate judgments in two other cases filed before the Court. (ECF No. 7.)
Plaintiff has moved for reconsideration and/or relief from judgment pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). (ECF No. 10.)
The Ninth Circuit has held that a Rule 59(e) motion for reconsideration should not
be granted “absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented
with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening
change in the controlling law.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH &
Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting 389 Orange Street Partners v. Arnold,
179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999)).
Here, Plaintiff does not present the Court with newly discovered evidence or an
intervening change in the law. Rather, Plaintiff appears to argue that the Court
committed clear error in its Order. Plaintiff simply rehashes his prior arguments and
makes certain new arguments that were available to him when he objected to the
reconsideration “may not be used to raise arguments or present evidence for the first
time when they could reasonably have been raised earlier in the litigation.” Kona Enters.,
Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir 2000) (emphasis in original). In
essence, Plaintiff simply seeks another opportunity to persuade the Court to permit him
to challenge the judgments in two other cases.
It is therefore ordered that Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration and/or relief from
judgment (ECF No. 10) is denied.
DATED THIS 3rd day of January 2017.
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
alludes to a motion to disqualify the entire court in Nevada. (ECF No. 10
at 2.) Such a motion was not filed in this case, and while Plaintiff named the undersigned
in this action, he made no allegations against the undersigned. The judgments that
Plaintiff seeks to vacate are in two cases presided by other district judges. The
undersigned has no conflict and sees no reason to recuse.
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?