Opinion
Case No. 2:15-cv-1873-RFB-VCF
06-01-2016
CHARLES R. JONES, Plaintiff, v. THE LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT; et.al., Defendants.
ORDER MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (ECF NO. 33)
This matter involves Plaintiff Charles R. Jones's civil action against the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department ("Metro") and other Defendants. Before the court is the Jones's motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 33), Metro's response (ECF No. 35), and the Jones's reply (ECF No. 38). For the reasons stated below, the Jones's motion is denied.
I. Discussion
"Reconsideration is appropriate if the district 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." School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993).
Jones's has not stated a ground on which this court may grant him his requested relief. (ECF No. 33) His motion does not cite to any intervening change in the law nor does it identify any newly discovered evidence. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d at 1263. Jones also does not allege that this court's initial decision was made in clear error or that it was manifestly unjust. Id. Rather Jones argues that this court should permit the parties to exchange discovery because the Defendants have continued to harass him, and he wants an opportunity to obtain information to support his claims. (ECF No. 33) Jones made similar arguments in his response to the Metro's initial motion to stay. (ECF No. 29) While Jones may disagree with this court's orders, he may not use a motion to reconsider to reiterate arguments he has already made. Maraziti v. Thorpe, 52 F.3d 252, 255 (9th Cir. 1995).
ACCORDINGLY, and for good cause shown,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Jones's motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 33) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 1st day of June, 2016.
/s/_________
CAM FERENBACH
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE