2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 MICHAEL COTA, Case No. 3:21-cv-00385-MMD-WGC

7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 COPPER HILLS YOUTH 9 CENTER, et al.,

10 Defendants.

11 12 This is a closed case, initially filed pursuant to

by pro se Plaintiff 13 Michael Cota, who is incarcerated at Ely State Prison in Nevada. (ECF No. 1-1.) On 14 October 18, 2021, the Court issued an order (ECF No. 10) dismissing the case without 15 prejudice based on Cota’s failure to file a complete application to proceed in forma 16 pauperis (“IFP Application”) and financial certificate or pay the full $402 filing fee by 17 October 13, 2021, in compliance with this Court's September 13, 2021, order (ECF No. 18 4). Cota appealed the dismissal of his case to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on 19 October 19, 2021, and requests reconsideration of the Court’s decision. (ECF No. 12.) 20 The Court will construe1 Cota’s notice of appeal as a motion to reconsider (“Motion”) the 21 October 18, 2021, dismissal order under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1).2 (ECF Nos. 12 at 1, 14 22 at 1.) As further explained below, the Court will grant the Motion because Cota’s IFP 23 Application and financial certificate were filed under the incorrect case number. 24 A party may bring a motion to reconsider under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) if they can 25 demonstrate “(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly 26 discovered evidence; (3) fraud or other misconduct; (4) a void judgment; (5) a satisfied or 27

28 1The Ninth Circuit issued an order suggesting that the Court construes it as such. (ECF No. 14.) 2 Head v. U.S., Case No. 94-35608,

(9th Cir. June 8, 1995) (citing 3 Backlund v. Barnhart,

, 1388 (9th Cir. 1985)). Rule 60(b) is “remedial in 4 nature” and “must be liberally applied.” Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc.,

, 5 1262 (9th Cir. 2010) (citations omitted). Motions made under Rule 60(b) “are addressed 6 to the sound discretion of the trial court.” Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of L.A., 782

, 832 (9th Cir. 1986) (citations omitted). Reconsideration of a prior decision is 8 appropriate if this Court “(1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed 9 clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening 10 change in controlling law.” Sch. Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc.,

, 1263 (9th Cir. 11 1993) (citation omitted). 12 In his Motion, Cota argues that the Court erred because he timely filed his IFP 13 Application and financial certificate on September 16, 2021, before the October 13, 2021, 14 deadline. (ECF No. 12 at 1.) Cota provides documents supporting his claim that his IFP 15 Application was timely filed. (Id. at 3-17.) The Court agrees with Cota. He appears to have 16 filed his IFP Application and financial certificate on September 16, 2021, but they were 17 filed under the wrong case number. See Cota v. John Doe, et al., Case No. 3:21-cv- 18 00350-RCJ-CLB, ECF No. 10 (D. Nev. Sept. 16, 2021). The Court accordingly finds that 19 the case was dismissed in error due to a docketing mistake and Cota has provided 20 sufficient grounds to justify relief under Rule 60(b)(1). The Court therefore grants Cota’s 21 Motion. 22 It is therefore ordered that Cota’s motion to reconsider (ECF No. 12) is granted. 23 It is further ordered that the Court’s October 18, 2021, dismissal order (ECF No. 24 10) is vacated. 25 The Clerk of Court is therefore directed to reopen this case. 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 The Clerk of Court is further directed to refile Cota’s complete application to 2 || proceed in forma pauperis and financial certificate under the correct case number. The 3 || Court will review Cota’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and financial certificate 4 || and screen his civil rights complaint pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1915A. 5 DATED THIS 29" Day of October 2021. MIRANDA M. DU 8 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28