Opinion
3:14-cv-689-RCJ-VPC
06-30-2015
MICHAEL JOHN MOE, Plaintiff, v. NNCC et al., Defendants.
ORDER
I. DISCUSSION
On May 21, 2015, this Court entered a screening order dismissing the complaint in its entirety without leave to amend. (ECF No. 3 at 8). Specifically, the Court found that Plaintiff failed to state a retaliation claim and due process claim. (Id. at 4-7). Plaintiff now files a motion for reconsideration. (ECF No. 6).
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).
The Court denies Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration. The Court does not find that it committed clear error in its original decision.
II. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that the motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 6) is denied.
Dated this 30th day of June, 2015.
/s/_________
United States District Judge