Bellow v. State of Nevada

Opinion

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 * * * 5 Armanna J. Bellow, Case No. 2:25-cv-00024-DJA 6 Plaintiff, 7 Order v. 8 State of Nevada, 9 Defendant. 10 11 Before the Court is pro se Plaintiff Armanna J. Bellow’s “motion for Daniel J. Albregts.” 12 (ECF No. 18). The Court liberally construes Plaintiff’s motion as a motion to reconsider the 13 Court’s prior order denying Plaintiff’s motions for default. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 14 (2007) (explaining that “[a] document filed pro se is to be liberally construed”). The Court 15 construes Plaintiff’s motion as one to reconsider because Plaintiff asserts “there is no reason you 16 should be denying my motion of [Default Judgement [sic] docket number 14] Clerks of court 17 entered default as to [Defendant] State of Nevada for not replying to summons…” 18 Plaintiff’s reconsideration request arises under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60, under 19 rule which the Court may provide relief from a judgment or order. Under Rule 60(b), in relevant 20 part, a court may relieve a party from an order for the following reasons: (a) mistake, 21 inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (b) newly discovered evidence; (c) fraud, 22 misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party; (d) any other reason that justifies relief. 23 Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1), (2), (3), (6). Relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6)— 24 providing for relief “for any other reason that justifies relief”—is only available in extraordinary 25 circumstances. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp. v. Dunnahoo, 637 F.2d 1338, 1341 (9th Cir. 26 1981). A motion for reconsideration is properly denied if it presents no new arguments. 27 Backlund v. Barnhart, 778 F.2d 1386, 1388 (9th Cir. 1985). Whether to grant reconsideration is ] Plaintiff does not provide any persuasive or legitimate reasons for the Court to reconsider 2 || its order denying Plaintiff's motions for default. Plaintiff appears to assert that the Court erred in 3 || denying the motions for default because the Clerk of Court already granted one of Plaintiff's 4 || motions for entry of clerk’s default. (ECF No. 14). However, while the Clerk of Court did enter 5 || default, obtaining a default judgment is a two-step process, of which obtaining a clerk’s default is 6 || only the first step. See Ramsey v. Hawaii, No. 20-00215 JMS-KJM, 2020 WL 5754010, at *1 (D. 7 || Haw. Sept. 2, 2020) (citing Symantec Corp. v. Global Impact, Inc., 559 F.3d 922, 923 (9th Cir. 8 || 2009)). Obtaining a default under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55 requires a plaintiff to first, 9 || seek the clerk’s entry of default and second, file a motion for entry of default judgment. See id. 10 || Plaintiff completed the first step. But, as the Court pointed out in its order denying Plaintiff's 11 || motions (which variably sought entry of clerk’s default and default judgment), the Court could 12 || not enter a default judgment because the Defendant had not been properly served. (ECF No. 17); 13 || see also Penpower Technology Ltd. v. S.P.C. Technology, 627 F.Supp.2d 1083, 1088 (N.D. Cal. 14 || 2008) (explaining that, before the court can enter default judgment, it must assess the adequacy of 15 || service of process on the party against whom default is requested). Because Plaintiff has 16 || advanced no persuasive or legitimate reason for the Court to reconsider its order, the Court denies 17 || Plaintiff's motion. 18 19 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs “motion for Daniel J. Albregts,” which 20 || the Court construes as a motion to reconsider, (ECF No. 18) is denied. 21 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is kindly directed to send Plaintiff 22 || acopy of this order. 23 24 DATED: July 16, 2025 ) ~

DANIEL J. ALBREGTS 4 26 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 27 28