Antonetti v. Cox et al

Filing 9

ORDER denying Plaintiff's ECF No. 8 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 7/3/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)

1
2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

4

***

5
6

JOSEPH ANTONETTI,

Case No. 3:18-cv-00067-MMD-CBC
Plaintiff

7

ORDER

v.
8
GREG COX, et al.,
9
Defendants.
10
11
12

Plaintiff, who is in the custody of the Nevada Department of Corrections (“NDOC”)

13

but serving his time in out-of-state confinement with the New Mexico Corrections

14

Department, has filed a motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 8) of this Court’s screening

15

order. In the screening order, the Court dismissed the case in its entirety because it was

16

duplicative of the case Plaintiff filed in 3:14-cv-00495-JAD-VPC. (ECF No. 5 at 3–5.)

17

Plaintiff now files a motion for reconsideration that challenges the Court’s order in the 2014

18

case and in the instant case. (See ECF No. 8.)

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” Sch. Dist. No.

25

1J v. Acands, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). “A motion for reconsideration is not

26

an avenue to re-litigate the same issues and arguments upon which the court already has

27

ruled.” Brown v. Kinross Gold, U.S.A., 378 F.Supp.2d 1280, 1288 (D. Nev. 2005).

28

1

The Court denies the motion for reconsideration because Plaintiff has not

2

presented the Court with newly discovered evidence, demonstrated that the Court

3

committed clear error, or that there was an intervening change in controlling law.

4
5
6

For the foregoing reasons, it is ordered that the motion for reconsideration (ECF
No. 8) is denied.
DATED THIS 3rd day of July 2019.

7
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2