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