Brown v. Breitenbach

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3

4 MARLON LORENZO BROWN, Case No. 3:23-cv-00148-RCJ-CLB 5 Petitioner, v. 7 NETHANJAH BREITENBACH, et al., 8 Respondents. 9

10 11 In this habeas corpus action, the pro se petitioner, Marlon Lorenzo Brown, filed a 12 motion to disqualify the Nevada Attorney General’s office from representing the 13 respondents. ECF No. 10. The Court denied that motion, without prejudice, on 14 May 25, 2023. ECF No. 13. Brown then moved for reconsideration of that order on 15 May 30, 2023. ECF No.14. The parties have fully briefed the motion for reconsideration. 16 ECF Nos. 15, 16. Federal district courts have inherent authority to reconsider 17 interlocutory rulings at any time. See, e.g., City of Los Angeles, Harbor Div. v. Santa 18 Monica Baykeeper, 254 F.3d 882, 887 (9th Cir. 2001). Reconsideration of an 19 interlocutory order “may be appropriate if (1) there is newly discovered evidence that 20 was not available when the original motion or response was filed, (2) the court 21 committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an 22 intervening change in controlling law.” LR 59-1. Brown makes no showing that 23 reconsideration of the May 25, 2023, order is warranted. The motion for reconsideration 24 will be denied. 25 On July 31, 2023, Brown filed a motion entitled “Motion for Release Pending 26 Resolution/Offer to Stipulate.” ECF No. 19. In that motion, Brown seeks release from 27 custody pending resolution of his habeas petition, and he offers “to stipulate in the 1 || opposition to that motion (ECF No. 20), and Brown filed a reply (ECF No. 21). Brown 2 || does not present any valid legal basis for release from custody pending resolution of 3 || this action. The Court will deny this motion. 4 The respondents were due on July 19, 2023, to respond to Brown’s petition for 5 || writ of habeas corpus. See Scheduling Order, entered April 20, 2023 (ECF No. 7) (90 6 || days for response). On July 17, 2023, Respondents filed a motion for extension of time 7 || (ECF No. 17) requesting an extension of time to September 18, 2023—a 61-day 8 || extension. Brown filed an opposition to the motion for extension of time on July 20, 2023 9 || (ECF No. 18). This would be the first extension of this deadline. Respondents’ counsel 10 || states that the extension of time is necessary because of his obligations in other cases. 11 || The Court finds that the motion for extension of time is made in good faith and not solely 12 || for the purpose of delay, and that there is good cause for the extension of time. The 13 || motion for extension of time will be granted. 14 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Petitioner's Motion to Reconsider 15 || (ECF No. 14) is DENIED. 16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner's Motion for Release Pending 17 || Resolution/Offer to Stipulate (ECF No. 19) is DENIED. 18 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondents’ Motion for Enlargement 19 || of Time (ECF No. 17) is GRANTED. Respondents will have until and including 20 || September 18, 2023, to answer or otherwise respond to the petition for writ of habeas 21 || corpus. In all other respects the schedule for further proceedings set forth in the order 22 || entered April 20, 2023 (ECF No. 7) will remain in effect. 23 DATED THIS 10th day of S72" , 2023. 24 : 26 UNITED $4 TES DISTRICT JUDGE 27 28