Bailey v. N.D.O.C.

District Court, D. Nevada·Decided May 9, 2023·No. 2:20-cv-01709·Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 * * *

7 ANTHONY BAILEY, Case No. 2:20-cv-01709-KJD-VCF

8 Plaintiff, ORDER

9 v.

10 NDOC, et al.,

11 Defendants.

12 Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s Rule 60(b)(1) Motion for Reconsideration (#49). 13 Defendant responded in opposition (#50) to which Plaintiff replied (#51). 14 I. Factual and Procedural Background 15 Plaintiff (“Bailey”) is an inmate at High Desert State Prison in Nevada. He brought suit 16 against multiple Defendants, asserting civil rights claims arising from 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 17 3, 2021, the Court issued a screening order dismissing many claims and letting others proceed 18 (#10). The Court also granted summary judgment and issued a judgment in favor of Gregory 19 Martin (“Martin”) and against Bailey. (#47/48). 20 Bailey now moves the Court to reconsider the screening order, the order denying entry of 21 default, and the order granting summary judgment in favor of Martin. The government, 22 representing only Martin, opposes the motion and argues it is untimely and does not present any 23 new evidence or argument to support reconsideration. (#50). 24 II. Legal Standard 25 1. Rule 60(b) 26 A motion for reconsideration is an “extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the 27 interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Kona Enters. Inc. v. Estate of 28 Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). This motion is brought under either Rule 59(e) or 1 Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Rule”). See United States v. Martin, 226 2 F.3d 1042, 1048 n.8 (9th Cir. 2000). 3 A motion for reconsideration should not merely present arguments previously raised; that is, 4 a motion for reconsideration is not a vehicle permitting the unsuccessful party to reiterate 5 arguments previously presented. See Merozoite v. Thorp, 52 F.3d 252, 255 (9th Cir. 1995); 6 Beentjes v. Placer County Air Pollution Control District, 254 F.Supp.2d 1159, at 1161 (E.D. Cal. 7 2003); Khan v. Fasano, 194 F. Supp. 2d 1134, 1136 (S.D. Cal. 2001) (“A party cannot have 8 relief under this rule merely because he or she is unhappy with the judgment.”). 9 A Rule 60(b) motion “must be made within a reasonable time...no more than a year after the 10 entry of the judgment or order or the date of the proceeding.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1). 11 2. Screening Order 12 Federal courts must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a prisoner seeks 13 redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 14 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any cognizable claims and dismiss any 15 claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or 16 seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 17 1915A(b)(1), (2). 18 Dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted is 19 provided for in Rule 12(b)(6), and the Court applies the same standard under § 1915 when 20 reviewing the adequacy of a complaint or an amended complaint. 21 Review under Rule 12(b)(6) is essentially a ruling on a question of law. See Chappel v. Lab 22 Corp. of America, 232 F.3d 719, 723 (9th Cir. 2000). Dismissal for failure to state a claim is 23 proper only if it is clear that the plaintiff cannot prove any set of facts in support of the claim that 24 would entitle him or her to relief. See Morley v. Walker, 175 F.3d 756, 759 (9th Cir. 1999). In 25 making this determination, the court takes as true all the allegations of material fact stated in the 26 complaint, and the Court construes them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See Warshaw 27 v. Xoma Corp., 74 F.3d 955, 957 (9th Cir. 1996). 28 However, a reviewing court should “begin by identifying pleadings [allegations] that, 1 because they are no more than mere conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of truth.” 2 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). “While legal conclusions can provide the 3 framework of a complaint, they must be supported with factual allegations.” Id. “When there are 4 well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then determine 5 whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.” Id. “Determining whether a 6 complaint states a plausible claim for relief…[is] a context-specific task that requires the 7 reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.” Id. 8 All or part of a complaint filed by a prisoner may therefore be dismissed sua sponte if the 9 prisoner’s claims lack an arguable basis either in law or in fact. This includes claims based on 10 legal conclusions that are untenable (e.g., claims against defendants who are immune from suit 11 or claims of infringement of a legal interest which clearly does not exist), as well as claims based 12 on fanciful factual allegations (e.g., fantastic or delusional scenarios). See Nietzke v. Williams, 13 490 U.S. 319, 327-28 (1989); see also McKeever v. Block, 932 F.2d 795, 798 (9th Cir. 1991). 14 III. Analysis 15 Bailey argues that the Court’s decisions were based on mistake, inadvertence, surprise or 16 excusable neglect. (#49, at 7). Bailey’s request to reconsider the screening order is untimely. The 17 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure mandate that a Rule 60(b) motion be filed within one year of 18 the order at issue. Here, the screening order was filed on June 3, 2021. (#10). The present motion 19 was filed on February 16, 2023, and therefore this motion in filed too late. 20 Regardless, the Court properly screened Bailey’s claims. Courts are tasked with examining 21 and analyzing the alleged wrongdoings that come before them. Courts are also bound by certain 22 procedural and substantive rules. Allegations made by a pro se complainant are held to less 23 stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers, but the complainant must still 24 identify some evidence or make legitimate claims against individuals who are not immune from 25 the suit based on the infrastructure established by the Constitution and Congress. Mere legal 26 conclusions or fantastic factual allegations that are not supported by facts or evidence cannot be 27 allowed to move forward as it congests the judicial system and places legitimate claims at the 28 back. Courts cannot just take a plaintiff’s “word for it,” as it would corrupt the system and 1 disable the adversarial framework that has been carefully designed.