Nall v. Williams

District Court, D. Nevada

Nall v. Williams

Trial Court Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 TYRONE T. NALL, Case No. 3:18-cv-00281-RCJ-WGC

4 Plaintiff ORDER

5 v.

6 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) I. Conclusion 3 For the foregoing reasons, it is ordered that the objection (ECF No. 6) is construed 4) as amotion for reconsideration and denied. ° DATED: This 7‘ day of October, 2019. 6 7 8 UNITED of DISTRICT JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-2-

Reference

Status
Unknown