Perez v. Cox

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA VICTOR PEREZ, as Special Administrator of Case No.: 2:15-cv-01572-APG-DJA the Estate of Carlos Perez, deceased, and as the Guardian Ad Litem for S.E.P. and A.I.P., Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration 5 Plaintiff [ECF No. 229] v. JAMES GREG COX, et al., 8 Defendants 9 Plaintiff Victor Perez moves for reconsideration of a portion of my order that granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on the loss of familial association claim under 42 11 U.S.C. § 1983. I deny the motion because it is untimely and because I find no basis to reconsider my decision. Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993); LR 59-1(c) (“Motions for reconsideration must be brought within a reasonable time.”). Perez moved for reconsideration nearly five months after I issued my order. ECF Nos. 205; 229. Given that the motion to reconsider largely repeats the arguments made at summary judgment, the lengthy delay was unreasonable.

17 Further, there is no inconsistency between my rulings on the § 1983 claim and the state law claims because the claims are governed by different legal standards. What may support a state law tort claim may be quite different from what is sufficient to support a claim for a constitutional violation. See Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 332 (1986) (“Our Constitution deals with the large concerns of the governors and the governed, but it does not purport to supplant traditional tort law in laying down rules of conduct to regulate liability for injuries that attend living together in society. We have previously rejected reasoning that would make of the Fourteenth Amendment a font of tort law to be superimposed upon whatever systems may 2\| already be administered by the States.” (simplified)).

3 I THEREFORE ORDER that the plaintiffs motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 229) is 4] DENIED.

5 DATED this 6th day of January, 2023.

6 UIE ANDREW P.GORDON sits g UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 1]