Farvela v. Matousek

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

SAUL FARVELA, Case No. 2:21-cv-01720-APG-DJA Plaintiff, ORDER v.

MATOUSEK, et al.,

Defendants.

I. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff Saul Farvela initiated this action with a pro se civil rights complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and an incomplete application to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF Nos. 1, 1-1. Magistrate Judge Albregts denied the incomplete application to proceed in forma pauperis without prejudice and with leave to file a complete application to proceed in forma pauperis by November 22, 2021. ECF No. 3. On November 17, 2021, the Clerk of the Court received a second application to proceed in forma pauperis and uploaded it to CM/ECF. ECF No. 4. The uploaded file was missing two pages. Id. As such, I dismissed this action without prejudice and closed this case based on Farvela’s apparent failure to file a complete application to proceed in forma pauperis.

Farvela has now filed a motion for reconsideration. ECF No. 7. In the motion, he states that he did file a complete application to proceed in forma pauperis and that the missing pages were printed on the backs of the other pages. I have confirmed that Farvela did file a complete application to proceed in forma pauperis. Because only the first two pages had printed material on both sides, Farvela’s application was inadvertently uploaded to CM/ECF without the back of the first two pages.

A party can seek reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). A motion to reconsider must set forth “some valid reason why the court should reconsider its prior decision” and set “forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to persuade the court to reverse its prior decision.” Frasure v. United States, 256 F.Supp.2d 1180, 1183 (D. Nev. 2003). A court may grant a motion for reconsideration for a number of reasons, including “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect,” or “any other reason that justifies relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)

I find that Farvela has set forth facts that provide a valid basis to reconsider my previous order dismissing this case. Farvela filed a complete application to proceed in forma pauperis, but two pages were inadvertently not uploaded to CM/ECF. Accordingly, I grant Farvela’s motion, vacate my previous order, and reopen this case.

12)/ 11. CONCLUSION

Therefore, I order that Farvela’s motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 7) is granted. I further order that the Clerk of the Court vacate the Order and Judgment dismissing this 15]| action without prejudice (ECF Nos. 5, 6).

I further order that the Clerk of the Court reopen this case.

I further order that the Clerk of the Court will file a complete version of the application to 18]| proceed in forma pauperis that Farvela filed on November 17, 2021, including the front and back 19] of the first two pages.

I further order that I will screen the complaint in a separate order.

Dated: December 28, 2021 _¢ Sir

U.S. District Judge