Leonard v. Naughton et al

Filing 27

ORDER that the motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 23 ) is denied. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 5/21/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - LH)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3

GREGORY N. LEONARD,

4

Plaintiff

5
6

Case No. 3:17-cv-00549-RCJ-CBC
ORDER

v.
DR. MARTIN NAUGHTON et al.,

7

Defendants

8
9

I.

DISCUSSION

10

On March 12, 2019, this Court entered a screening order and dismissed the entire

11

first amended complaint, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim. (ECF No. 20 at 8).

12

The Clerk of the Court entered judgment. (ECF No. 21). On March 25, 2019, Plaintiff

13

filed a motion petition for rehearing. (ECF No. 23). On April 9, 2019, Plaintiff filed a notice

14

of appeal. (ECF No. 24). On April 12, 2019, the Ninth Circuit issued an order holding the

15

appeal proceeding in abeyance pending this Court’s resolution of ECF No. 23. (ECF No.

16

26).

17

A motion to reconsider must set forth “some valid reason why the court should

18

reconsider its prior decision” and set “forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to

19

persuade the court to reverse its prior decision.” Frasure v. United States, 256 F.Supp.2d

20

1180, 1183 (D. Nev. 2003). Reconsideration is appropriate if this Court “(1) is presented

21

with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was

22

manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” Sch. Dist.

23

No. 1J v. Acands, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). “A motion for reconsideration

24

is not an avenue to re-litigate the same issues and arguments upon which the court

25

already has ruled.” Brown v. Kinross Gold, U.S.A., 378 F.Supp.2d 1280, 1288 (D. Nev.

26

2005).

27

The Court interprets Plaintiff’s motion petition for rehearing (ECF No. 23) as a

28

motion for reconsideration. The Court has reviewed the motion and finds that Plaintiff

1

fails to present any newly discovered evidence. Additionally, the Court finds that it did

2

not commit clear error or that its initial decision was manifestly unjust or that there was

3

an intervening change in controlling law. The Court denies the motion.

4

II.

5
6

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, it is ordered that the motion for reconsideration (ECF

No. 23) is denied.

7
8

21st day of April
DATED THIS ____ day of May, 2019.

9
10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-2-