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)

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