Mixon v. Nevada Department of Corrections et al

Filing 87

ORDER that Plaintiff's motions for reconsideration (ECF Nos. 83 , 84 ) are denied. Signed by Chief Judge Miranda M. Du on 11/6/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - LH)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5

***

6
7

ANTONIO LEE MIXON,

Case No. 3:17-cv-00146-MMD-CBC
Plaintiff,

8
v.

9
10

ORDER

NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, et al.,

11
Defendant.
12
13

Pro se Plaintiff Antonio Lee Mixon, who is in custody of the Nevada Department of

14

Corrections, brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violation of his (1)

15

Eighth Amendment right for denial of meals and (2) First Amendment right for denial of

16

access to grievances. The Court adopted the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of

17

United States Magistrate Judge Carla B. Carry (ECF No. 79) and granted Defendants’

18

motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 73). (ECF No. 81 (“Order”).) Before the Court is

19

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the Court’s Order (“Motion”), seeking

20

reconsideration as to his Eighth Amendment claim. 1 (ECF Nos. 83, 84 (amended

21

Motion).)

22

A motion for reconsideration must set forth the following: (1) some valid reason

23

why the court should revisit its prior order; and (2) facts or law of a “strongly convincing

24

nature” in support of reversing the prior decision. Frasure v. United States, 256

25

F.Supp.2d 1180, 1183 (D. Nev. 2003). Motions for reconsideration are not “the proper

26

vehicles for rehashing old arguments,” Resolution Trust Corp. v. Holmes, 846 F.Supp.

27
28

1The

85.)

Court has also reviewed Defendants’ Opposition to the Motion. (ECF No.

1

1310, 1316 (S.D. Tex. 1994) (footnotes omitted), and are not “intended to give an

2

unhappy litigant one additional chance to sway the judge.” Durkin v. Taylor, 444 F.Supp.

3

879, 889 (E.D. Va. 1977).

4

Here, Plaintiff does not present the Court with newly discovered evidence or an

5

intervening change in the law. Rather, Plaintiff argues that the Court committed clear

6

error in its Order. (ECF No. 83 at 2.) Plaintiff simply rehashes his prior arguments and

7

insists that this Court issue its own opinion on the merits, instead of relying on the R&R.

8

(Id.) In essence, Plaintiff simply seeks another opportunity to persuade the Court of his

9

original position. Not only does the Court disagree that it committed clear error in its prior

10

Order, but this is not the appropriate avenue for Plaintiff to reargue his prior position.

11

Moreover, the Court did conduct a de novo review in deciding to adopting the R&R and

12

did not simply rely on the R&R.

13
14

It is therefore ordered that Plaintiff’s motions for reconsideration (ECF Nos. 83,
84) are denied.

15
16

DATED THIS 6th day of November 2019.

17
18

MIRANDA M. DU
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2