Opinion
Case No. 3:17-cv-00569-MMD-VPC
04-06-2018
TERON FRANKLIN, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF NEVADA, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
I. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On September 15, 2017, Plaintiff, who is a prisoner in the custody of the Nevada Department of Corrections ("NDOC"), filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and three motions for preliminary injunction (ECF Nos. 1-1, 1-2, 1 -3, 5, 6).
On March 9, 2018, the Court issued a screening order on Plaintiff's complaint, dismissing the entire complaint, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim. (ECF No. 7.) The Court also denied the motions for preliminary injunction on the basis that Plaintiff failed to state any colorable claims in his complaint. (Id.) Presently before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of the screening order and the subsequent entry of judgment (ECF No. 10).
II. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
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). Reconsideration is appropriate if this Court "(1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law." Sch. Dist. No. 1J v. Acands, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). "A motion for reconsideration is not an avenue to re-litigate the same issues and arguments upon which the court already has ruled." Brown v. Kinross Gold, U.S.A., 378 F.Supp.2d 1280, 1288 (D. Nev. 2005).
Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration asks the Court to reconsider the requests for emergency preliminary injunction (ECF No. 10 at 3) and restates many of the same factual allegations that are present in his complaint. (See id.) However, as the Court stated in the screening order, Plaintiff's largely incomprehensible narrative makes it nearly impossible for the Court to identify the legal basis for his claims. (ECF No. 7 at 4.) Additionally, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not presented the Court with any newly discovered evidence, shown that the Court committed clear error, that the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or that there has been an intervening change in controlling law. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is denied.
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, it is ordered that Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 10) is denied.
DATED THIS 6th day of April, 2018.
/s/_________
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE