Nall v. Williams et al

Filing 10

ORDER construing as a motion for reconsideration and denying ECF No. 6 Objection to ECF No. 3 Screening Order. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 10/7/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3

TYRONE T. NALL,

4

Plaintiff

5
6

Case No. 3:18-cv-00281-RCJ-WGC
ORDER

v.
SHELLEY WILLIAMS et al.,

7

Defendants

8
9

I.

Discussion

10

On September 12, 2019, this Court issued a screening order dismissing the federal

11

claim with prejudice as amendment would be futile and declining to exercise supplemental

12

jurisdiction over the state law claims. (ECF No. 3 at 5). The Clerk of the Court closed the

13

case and entered judgment. (ECF No. 5). On September 16, 2019, Plaintiff filed an

14

“objection” which the Court construes as a motion for reconsideration. (ECF No. 6).

15

Upon motion by a party within twenty-eight days of the entry of judgment, the court

16

may alter or amend its findings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). Fed. R. Civ.

17

P. 59(e). A party can also seek reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

18

60(b). Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). “Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is

19

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

20

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

21

Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). A

22

motion for reconsideration “may not be used to raise arguments or present evidence for

23

the first time when they could reasonably have been raised earlier in the litigation.” Carroll

24

v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003). District courts have discretion regarding

25

whether to grant a motion to amend under Rule 59(e) or 60(b). Wood v. Ryan, 759 F.3d

26

1117, 1121 (9th Cir. 2014).

27

The Court denies the motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 6). The Court has

28

reviewed the complaint, screening order, and motion and finds that it did not commit clear

1

error in the initial decision.

2

II.

3
4
5
6

Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, it is ordered that the objection (ECF No. 6) is construed

as a motion for reconsideration and denied.
DATED: This 7th day of October, 2019.

DATED THIS ____ day of September 2019.

7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

-2-