Bai v. Reubart

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: January 27, 2021
• Docket: 2:19-cv-00739
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 10

11 XIAOYE BAI, Case No.: 2:19-cv-00739-GMN-NJK 12 Plaintiff(s), ORDER 13 v.

14 REUBART, et al., [Docket No. 37] 15 Defendant(s). 16 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the order denying his 17 request for appointment of counsel. Docket No. 37; see also Docket No. 26 (order denying request 18 for appointment of counsel). Defendants filed a response in opposition. Docket No. 38. 19 Motions for reconsideration are disfavored. Local Rule 59-1(b); see also Koninklijke 20 Philips Elecs. N.V. v. KXD Tech., Inc., 245 F.R.D. 470, 472 (D. Nev. 2007) (“Reconsideration is 21 an extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly” (citation and internal quotations omitted)). The 22 Local Rules provide the applicable standards in addressing whether the Court should reconsider 23 an interlocutory order, indicating that reconsideration may be appropriate if (1) there is newly 24 discovered evidence that was not available when the original motion or response was filed, (2) the 25 Court committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) there is an 26 intervening change in controlling law. Local Rule 59-1(a). 27 In this case, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration has added some additional detail, such 28 as the fact that he has previously obtained help with legal filings from another inmate. Considering 1} the new arguments made, the Court is not persuaded that circumstances exist that would justify 2|| reconsideration. 3 Accordingly, the motion for reconsideration is DENIED. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 Dated: January 27, 2021 UA. fo ax a _ Nancy J. Koppe' 7 United Statés-Magistrate Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28