Stevenson v. Bisbee et al

Filing 7

ORDER denying as moot ECF No. 5 Motion for Reconsideration; granting in part and denying in part ECF No. 6 Motion for Reconsideration; vacating the denial of and reinstating ECF No. 1 IFP application; grant ing ECF No. 1 IFP application - NDOC to pay Clerk from inmate account (copy of order mailed to NDOC Chief of Inmate Services, NEF sent to Finance); directing that the complaint remains dismissed in its entirety pursuant to ECF No. 3 Screening Order; certifying that any in forma pauperis appeal would be taken "in good faith." Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 2/24/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 11 *** 12 RONALD ALEX STEVENSON, 13 Case No. 3:16-cv-00308-MMD-WGC Plaintiff, ORDER v. 14 CONNIE S. BISBEE et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 I. DISCUSSION 19 On January 31, 2017, this Court entered a screening order dismissing the entire 20 complaint without leave to amend, denied the application to proceed in forma pauperis as 21 moot, and certified that any in forma pauperis appeal from the order would not be taken 22 in good faith. (ECF No. 3 at 6.) In the complaint, Plaintiff sought declaratory relief and 23 prospective injunctive relief for a parole hearing that would take place sometime after 24 June 5, 2019. (Id. at 3.) The Court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint on the grounds that he 25 could not establish irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief at this time and 26 that he could not challenge the constitutionality of the statute that he was convicted of in 27 a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action based on Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 78 (2005) and 28 Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922 (9th Cir. 2016). (Id. at 5.) 1 Plaintiff now files a motion for reconsideration. (ECF No. 6.)1 In the motion, Plaintiff 2 disagrees with the Court’s interpretation of Wilkinson and challenges the dismissal of his 3 complaint on all grounds. (See generally ECF No. 6.) Plaintiff asserts that an appeal would 4 be taken in good faith. (Id. at 8.) 5 A motion to reconsider must set forth “some valid reason why the court should 6 reconsider its prior decision” and set “forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to 7 persuade the court to reverse its prior decision.” Frasure v. United States, 256 F.Supp.2d 8 1180, 1183 (D. Nev. 2003). Reconsideration is appropriate if this Court “(1) is presented 9 with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was 10 manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” Sch. Dist. No. 11 1J v. Acands, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). “A motion for reconsideration is not 12 an avenue to re-litigate the same issues and arguments upon which the court already has 13 ruled.” Brown v. Kinross Gold, U.S.A., 378 F.Supp.2d 1280, 1288 (D. Nev. 2005). 14 The Court denies Plaintiff’s motion in part and grants it in part. The Court has 15 reviewed Plaintiff’s arguments and does not find that it committed clear error in its initial 16 decision. However, the Court will reconsider its findings with respect to Plaintiff’s 17 application to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court will now grant Plaintiff’s application 18 to proceed in forma pauperis and certify that an appeal would be taken in good faith. 19 II. 20 21 CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, it is ordered that the motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 5) is denied as moot. 22 It is further ordered that the motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 6) is granted in 23 part and denied in part. The Court denies the motion based on its legal arguments but will 24 grant the motion with respect to reconsideration of the application to proceed in forma 25 pauperis. 26 27 28 1Plaintiff filed two motions for reconsideration a day apart. (ECF Nos. 5, 6). The latter motion states that it is “corrected and dated.” (ECF No. 6 at 1). The Court denies the first motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 5) as moot and addresses the arguments in the latter motion. 2 1 It is further ordered that the Court vacates the denial of the application to proceed 2 in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1) as moot and reinstates the application to proceed in forma 3 pauperis. 4 It is further ordered that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF 5 No. 1) without having to prepay the full filing fee is granted. Plaintiff will not be required to 6 pay an initial installment fee. Nevertheless, the full filing fee will still be due, pursuant to 7 28 U.S.C. § 1915, as amended by the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act. The movant herein 8 is permitted to maintain this action to conclusion without the necessity of prepayment of 9 fees or costs or the giving of security therefor. This order granting in forma pauperis status 10 shall not extend to the issuance and/or service of subpoenas at government expense. 11 It is further ordered that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, as amended by the Prisoner 12 Litigation Reform Act, the Nevada Department of Corrections will pay to the Clerk of the 13 United States District Court, District of Nevada, 20% of the preceding month’s deposits 14 to the account of Ronald Alex Stevenson, #81847 (in months that the account exceeds 15 $10.00) until the full $350 filing fee has been paid for this action. The Clerk will send a 16 copy of this order to the attention of Albert G. Peralta, Chief of Inmate Services for the 17 Nevada Department of Prisons, P.O. Box 7011, Carson City, NV 89702. 18 It is further ordered that, even if this action is dismissed, or is otherwise 19 unsuccessful, the full filing fee will still be due, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915, as amended 20 by the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act. 21 22 23 24 25 It is further ordered that the complaint remains dismissed in its entirety pursuant to the screening order (ECF No. 3). It is further ordered that this Court certifies that any in forma pauperis appeal from this order would be taken “in good faith” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). DATED THIS 24th day of February 2017. 26 27 MIRANDA M. DU UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 28 3

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?