Silva v. Stogner et al
ORDER Granting in part and Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 12 ) The Court will not reverse its prior ruling. However, the Court will set a hearing to review whether Plaintiff is requesting leave to refile his motion. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a hearing is set for April 30, 2021 at 1:00 PM in by videoconference before Judge Richard F. Boulware, II. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - BEL)
Case 3:20-cv-00027-RFB-WGC Document 13 Filed 03/31/21 Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
Case No. 3:20-cv-00027-RFB-WGC
JAMES STOGNER. et al,
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 12)
Plaintiff filed an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis on January 15, 2020. ECF No.
1. Plaintiff filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order on January
23, 2020. ECF No. 3. The Court denied the Motion for Preliminary Injunction on May 18, 2020.
ECF No. 11. Plaintiff filed this Motion for Reconsideration on June 1, 2020. ECF No. 12.
The Court has discretion to grant or deny a motion for reconsideration. Navajo Nation v.
Norris, 331 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th Cir. 2003). Motions for reconsideration are disfavored, and a
movant may not repeat arguments already presented. D. Nev. Civ. R. 59-1(b). Conversely, “A
motion for reconsideration may not be used to raise arguments or present evidence for the first
time when they could reasonably have been raised earlier in the litigation.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals,
571 F.3d at 880 (internal quotations and citations omitted).
Case 3:20-cv-00027-RFB-WGC Document 13 Filed 03/31/21 Page 2 of 2
Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the Court’s order denying the preliminary injunction. The
Plaintiff’s primary argument is that the Court was required to screen the Complaint prior to issuing
its order on the preliminary injunction. The Court disagrees. There is no legal requirement for the
Court to screen the Complaint prior to deciding a motion for a preliminary injunction. The Court
did not commit legal error by not screening the Complaint prior to issuing its order.
However, the Court does find it appropriate to set a status conference on this case as it
relates to the potential refiling of the preliminary injunction motion at this time. The Court did not
intend for the Plaintiff to be foreclosed from reasserting his motion when conditions had evolved
with respect to pandemic-related restrictions.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No.
12) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The Court will not reverse its prior ruling.
However, the Court will set a hearing to review whether Plaintiff is requesting leave to refile his
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a hearing is set for April 30, 2021 at 1:00 PM in by
videoconference before Judge Richard F. Boulware, II.
DATED: March 31, 2021.
RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?