Barren v. Dzurenda

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 DONALD ROTSIN BARREN, Case No.: 2:19-cv-00142-APG-VCF

4 Plaintiff Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration

5 v. [ECF No. 56]

6 JAMES DZURENDA, et al.,

7 Defendants

8 Plaintiff Donald Barren moves for reconsideration of my prior order dismissing various 9 defendants because of Barren’s failure to timely serve them. 10 Reconsideration may be appropriate “if the district court (1) is presented with newly 11 discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or 12 (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” Sch. Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 13 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). A district court may also reconsider its decision if “other, highly 14 unusual, circumstances” warrant it. Id. As the movant, Barren “must set forth facts or law of a 15 strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior decision.” United States v. 16 Westlands Water Dist., 134 F. Supp. 2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001). A motion for 17 reconsideration “must not repeat arguments already presented unless (and only to the extent) 18 necessary to explain controlling, intervening law or to argue new facts.” LR 59-1(b); Backlund v. 19 Barnhart, 778 F.2d 1386, 1388 (9th Cir. 1985). 20 Barren has not presented sufficient evidence or reasons for me to reconsider my prior 21 order. 22 / / / / 23 / / / / 1 I THEREFORE ORDER that plaintiff Donald Barren’s motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 56) is denied. 3 DATED this 11th day of January, 2022. 4 G-— > ANDREW P.GORDON sits 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

7 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23