Brown v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA * * * MARLON BROWN, Case No. 2:19-cv-01350-APG-DJA Plaintiff, 7 ORDER v. LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT, ET AL., 10 Defendants.

12 This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 34) and Exhibit (ECF No. 35), filed on August 14 and 17, 2020. Defendants filed a Response (ECF No. 41) on August 28, 2020. This matter is also before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Judicial Notice (ECF No. 42), filed on August 28, 2020.

16 The Court notes that a Notice of Appearance was filed on August 24, 2020 by attorney Michael Mcavoyamaya indicating he now represents the Plaintiff. As such, Plaintiff shall not continue to file anything personally with the Court and all filings must be made by the attorney.

19 Local Rule IA 11-6.

20 Moreover, Plaintiff’s personally filed request that the Court take judicial notice of his discovery documents is procedurally improper. Plaintiff shall not file discovery documents with the Court and judicial notice is not appropriate for a discovery document. As such, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s Motion.

24 Similarly, Plaintiff’s personally filed request for reconsideration lacks merit. A district court “possesses the inherent procedural power to reconsider, rescind, or modify an interlocutory order for cause seen by it to be sufficient[,]” so long as it has jurisdiction. City of Los Angeles, Harbor Div. v. Santa Monica Baykeeper, 254 F.3d 882, 885 (9th Cir. 2001) (quotation and || This district’s local rule LR 59-1 advises that “[a] party seeking reconsideration . . . must state || with particularity the points of law or fact that the court has overlooked or misunderstood.” LR |} 59-1(a). “Motions for reconsideration are disfavored. A movant must not repeat arguments || already presented” except in narrow circumstances. Id. at (b).

5 Plaintiff does not set forth a valid reason why the Court should reconsider Order ECF No. || 32. He merely restates the arguments that he has made multiple times before. Further, the Court || is not persuaded that Plaintiff's failure to respond to requests for admission for over 100 days || should be excused. Therefore, it will deny his request for reconsideration.

9 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. || 34) is denied.

11 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion for Judicial Notice (ECF No. 42) is || denied.

13 DATED: September 8, 2020. ) 14 □□ AY DANIEL J. ALBREGTS 15 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Page 2 of 2