2

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 SAMUEL A. JIMENEZ, Case No. 3:20-cv-00045-MMD-CLB

7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 GRAND SIERRA RESORT, et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 Plaintiff has filed a civil rights action under

against the Grand 12 Sierra Resort and several of its employees for wrongfully apprehending and attacking him. 13 (ECF No. 5 at 3.) The Court adopted Magistrate Judge Carla L. Baldwin's Report and 14 Recommendation ("R&R") and dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction 15 because the Court agreed with Judge Baldwin and because Plaintiff failed to timely object. 16 (ECF No. 7 at 1-2 (adopting ECF No. 5).) Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for 17 reconsideration (the “Motion”) (ECF No. 12) of this Court’s order.1 For the reasons 18 explained below, the Court will deny the Motion. 19 A motion for reconsideration must set forth the following: (1) some valid reason why 20 the court should revisit its prior order; and (2) facts or law of a “strongly convincing nature” 21 in support of reversing the prior decision. Frasure v. United States,

, 22 1183 (D. Nev. 2003). Reconsideration is appropriate if this Court “(1) is presented with 23 newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly 24 unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” Sch. Dist. No. 1J v. 25 ACandS, Inc.,

, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993) (citation omitted). Motions for 26

27 1Judge Baldwin recommended that Plaintiff's in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1) be granted, his Complaint (ECF No. 1-1) be dismissed with prejudice, and his pending 28 motions (ECF Nos. 3, 4) be denied as moot. 1 || reconsideration are not “the proper vehicles for rehashing old arguments,” Resolution 2 || Trust Corp. v. Holmes,

(S.D. Tex. 1994) (footnotes omitted), and 3 || are not “intended to give an unhappy litigant one additional chance to sway the judge.” 4 || Durkin v. Taylor,

(E.D. Va. 1977). 5 Plaintiff argues that Washoe County Jail failed to notify the Court that Plaintiff was 6 || moved to the Nevada Department of Corrections (the “NDOC”). (ECF No. 12 at 1.) But 7 || see LR IA 3-1 (noting that a pro se party is responsible for apprising courts of his or her 8 || address). Furthermore, NDOC just recently allowed Plaintiff to submit a change of 9 || address, explaining to him that the courts were temporarily shut down due to the Corona 10 || virus pandemic. (ECF No. 12 at 1.) Even if Plaintiff's arguments were true, the Court still 11 || lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action, which Plaintiff does not address. (See 12 || ECF No. 7 at 2). Accordingly, the Court will deny the Motion. 13 It is further ordered that Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 12) is 14 || denied. 15 It is further ordered that the Clerk of Court send Plaintiff a copy of his Complaint. 16 DATED THIS 9"" day of June 2020. 17 — 18 Aq M4RANDA M. DU 19 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28