1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 Jesus Rodriguez Rodriquez, 2:22-cv-01651-MMD-MDC 4 Plaintiff(s), ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (ECF NO. 40) 5 vs. 6 Charles Daniels, et al., 7 Defendant(s). 8 9 10 With the apparent aid of an interpreter, plaintiff filed a Motion for Reconsideration (“Motion”). 11 (ECF No. 40) of the Court’s 7/21/25 Order (ECF No. 38) denying his request for copies of filings on the 12 Court’s docket. The Court also interprets plaintiff’s Motion as a motion for clarification on how plaintiff 13 may obtain copies of court filings. For the reasons stated below, the Court DENIES plaintiff’s Motion 14 as to reconsideration of the Court’s 7/21/25 Order and GRANTS the Motion as to seeking clarification 15 on obtaining copies. 16 I. ANALYSIS 17 A. PLAINTIFF FAILS TO SHOW RECONSIDERATION IS APPROPRIATE 18 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(1) states that, “[o]n motion and just terms, the court may 19 relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for…mistake, 20 inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect[.]” Local Rule 59-l(a) states that motions for 21 reconsideration, must state the, “[c]hanges in legal or factual circumstances that may entitle the movant 22 to relief also must be stated with particularity.” Reconsideration may be appropriate if the district court 23 is presented with newly discovered evidence. Smith v. Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist.,

(9th 24 Cir. 2013) (citing School Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc.,

, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). Plaintiff’s 25 1 Motion does not establish any grounds for reconsideration of the Court’s 7/21/25 Order. Plaintiff does 2 not show any mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect, changes in legal or factual 3 circumstances, or newly discovered evidence. Accordingly, the Court declines to reconsider its 7/21/25 4 Order. 5 B. CLARIFICATION REGARDING OBTAINING COPIES OF FILINGS 6 “A document filed pro se is “to be liberally construed.” Erickson v. Pardus,

, 94 7 (2007). The Court liberally construes plaintiff’s Motion as a request for clarification regarding 8 obtaining copies of filings. The Court’s 7/21/25 Order stated that plaintiff received copies of Court 9 filings from the law library at High Desert State Prison (where he is in custody) and, if he needs 10 additional or replacement copies, he can request them from the High Desert State Prison law library. Id 11 In his Motion, plaintiff states that the Court did not elaborate how plaintiff may obtain copies 12 from the High Desert State Prison law library. See ECF No. 40. In their Opposition, Defendants state 13 that plaintiff may obtain copies of court filings – at his own expense - by submitting form “DOC 3064 -- 14 - Legal Copy Work Request” and “a DOC 509 ‘Brass Slip’ to the High Desert State Prison Law Library 15 Supervisor. Defs’ Opposition at 2, ECF No. 42. Defendants also included a copy of form DOC 3064 --- 16 Legal Copy Work Request as an exhibit to their Opposition, which the Court also attaches to this order 17 for plaintiff’s convenience. 18 // 19 // 20 // 21 // 22 // 23 // 24 // 25 1 II. CONCLUSION & ORDER 2 For the foregoing reasons, 3 IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part as follows: 4 a. Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED as to reconsideration of the Court’s 7/21/25 Order. 5 b. Plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED as to seeking clarification on obtaining copies. 6 Plaintiff may obtain copies of court filings – at his own expense - by submitting form “DOC 3064 --- 7 Legal Copy Work Request,” a courtesy copy of which is attached to this order as Exhibit A, and “a 8 DOC 509 ‘Brass Slip’ to the High Desert State Prison Law Library Supervisor. 9 DATED: August 13, 2025.

10 _________________________

Hon. Maximiliano D. Couvillier III 11 United States Magistrate Judge

12 NOTICE 13 Pursuant to Local Rules IB 3-1 and IB 3-2, a party may object to orders and reports and 14 recommendations issued by the magistrate judge. Objections must be in writing and filed with the Clerk 15 of the Court within fourteen days. LR IB 3-1, 3-2. The Supreme Court has held that the courts of appeal 16 may determine that an appeal has been waived due to the failure to file objections within the specified 17 time. Thomas v. Arn,

(1985). This circuit has also held that (1) failure to file 18 objections within the specified time and (2) failure to properly address and brief the objectionable issues 19 waives the right to appeal the District Court's order and/or appeal factual issues from the order of the 20 District Court. Martinez v. Ylst,

(9th Cir. 1991); Britt v. Simi Valley United Sch. 21 Dist.,

, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). Pursuant to LR IA 3-1, the plaintiff must immediately file 22 written notification with the court of any change of address. The notification must include proof of 23 service upon each opposing party’s attorney, or upon the opposing party if the party is unrepresented by 24 counsel. Failure to comply with this rule may result in dismissal of the action. 25 EXHIBIT A NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS LEGAL COPY WORK REQUEST DATE: □ TO: Law Library Supervisor ‘ □ FROM: Infate Name NDOC # Institution & Unit SUBJECT: LEGAL COPY WORK REQUEST

Is this request for new or current litigation? If current, please provide the case number ee Number of pages to be copied: Number of copies of each page: Total request cost ($0. 10/page): ee Brass slip # (DOC-S09) attached: Special Insizictions: eee □□ cn aan a

A rr a

"spate Signature Upon Request. ——~—~—~—~SCS~CSCSND To Be Completed by Institutional Law Library Operations Only: DENIED BY: DATE: © IF DENIED, WHY? APPROVED BY; DATE: _ BRASS SLIP ATTACHED YIN METER METER (Circle One): START: END: DATE REQUEST COMPLETED AND RETURNED: (Para oe Sepa TRS ene a - - = I RECEIVED THE ABOVE LEGAL COPY WORK, AND VERIFY IT IS COMPLETE. Inmate Signature Upon Receipt NDOCH apa