Lewis v. Gutierrez et al
Filing
90
ORDERED that Defendants' motion for reconsideration, (ECF No. 81 ), is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Lewis's motion for reconsideration, (ECF No. 84 ), is DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carla Baldwin on 9/24/2024. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
3
***
4
ISAAC LEWIS,
5
Plaintiff,
6
7
Case No. 3:22-CV-00010-CLB 1
v.
[ECF Nos. 81, 84]
B. GUTIERREZ, et al.,
8
ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR
RECONSIDERATION
Defendants.
9
10
Before the Court is Defendants Veronica Avila, Albert Castellan, Benedicto
11
Gutierrez, and Vanessa Nicholson’s (formerly Rodriguez) (collectively referred to as
12
“Defendants”) motion for reconsideration. (ECF No. 81.) Plaintiff Isaac Lewis (“Lewis”)
13
responded, (ECF No. 83), and Defendants replied, (ECF No. 86). Also pending before
14
the Court is Lewis’s motion for reconsideration, (ECF No. 84). Defendants responded,
15
(ECF No. 88), and Lewis replied, (ECF No. 89). For the reasons discussed below, the
16
motions, (ECF Nos. 81, 84), are denied.
17
I.
BACKGROUND
18
Lewis is an inmate in the custody of the Nevada Department of Corrections
19
(“NDOC”). On January 10, 2022, Lewis filed a civil rights complaint (“Complaint”) under
20
42 U.S.C. § 1983 for events that occurred while Lewis was incarcerated at the High Desert
21
State Prison (“HDSP”). (ECF No. 1-1.)
22
On January 18, 2022, the District Court screened the Complaint pursuant to 28
23
U.S.C. § 1915A. (ECF No. 3.) Lewis was allowed to proceed on an Eighth Amendment
24
deliberate indifference to serious medical needs regarding dental treatment against
25
Defendant Gutierrez, John Doe HDSP Head Dentist, and Jane Doe HDSP Dental
26
27
28
The parties voluntarily consented to have this case referred to the undersigned to
conduct all proceedings and entry of a final judgment in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §
636(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 73. (ECF No. 37.)
1
1
assistant, when he learned their identities. (Id.)
2
On April 23, 2024, Lewis filed his motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 61.) On
3
June 10, 2024, Defendants filed their motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 66.)
4
Ultimately, the Court denied each motion for summary judgment, finding genuine issues
5
of material fact exist as to Lewis’s allegations of delayed treatment for his dental needs.
6
(ECF No. 75.) Defendants and Lewis now each move for reconsideration of the Court’s
7
order denying the motions for summary judgment.
8
II.
LEGAL STANDARD
9
A motion to reconsider must set forth the following: (1) some valid reason why the
10
court should revisit its prior order; and (2) facts or law of a “strongly convincing nature”
11
in support of reversing the prior decision. Frasure v. United States, 256 F. Supp. 2d 1180,
12
1183 (D. Nev. 2003). Reconsideration may be appropriate if (1) the court is presented
13
with newly discovered evidence, (2) has committed clear error, or (3) there has been an
14
intervening change in controlling law. Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v.
15
ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993); Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop,
16
229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). A motion for reconsideration is properly denied where
17
it presents no new arguments. See Backlund v. Barnhart, 778 F.2d 1386, 1388 (9th Cir.
18
1985). As the case law indicates, motions to reconsider are granted rarely. See, e.g.,
19
School Dist. No. 1J, 5 F.3d at 1263.
20
III.
DISCUSSION
21
Defendants seek reconsideration of the Court’s order denying Defendants’ motion
22
for summary judgment, arguing that there was no significant delay in treatment for Lewis,
23
thus there was no constitutional violation and because there was no constitutional
24
violation, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. (ECF No. 81.) Lewis seeks
25
reconsideration of the Court’s order denying his motion for summary judgment, arguing
26
no genuine issues of material fact exists, as “Defendants clearly denied [Lewis] treatment
27
he was [e]ntitled to which resulted in further pain, suffering and loss of teeth.” (ECF No.
28
84.)
2
1
Each motion appears to be an attempt to re-argue the original motions for
2
summary judgment, which the Court found presented genuine issues of material fact for
3
a jury to decide. However, neither Defendants nor Lewis offer any newly discovered
4
evidence, the Court did not commit clear error, nor was the decision manifestly unjust,
5
and there is no intervening change in controlling law. Further, to the extent the parties
6
are attempting to raise new arguments, this is improper. See Kona Enters., Inc., 229
7
F.3d at 890 (a motion for reconsideration “may not be used to raise arguments or present
8
evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been raised earlier in the
9
litigation.”). In sum, the Court does not find reconsideration appropriate and denies the
10
motions accordingly.
11
IV.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
CONCLUSION
Consistent with the above, IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for
reconsideration, (ECF No. 81), is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Lewis’s motion for reconsideration, (ECF No. 84),
is DENIED.
September 24, 2024
DATED: __________________.
_________________________________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?