Conner v. United States of America

Opinion

3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 8 * * * 9 10 PAULA CONNER, Case No. 2:19-cv-02241-RFB-VCF 11 Plaintiff(s), 12 vs. ORDER 13

14 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 15 Defendant(s). 16 17 The Court construes Plaintiff’s [40] Motion to Amend/Correct and [42] Motion for Hearing 18 to Reinstate Civil Action as Motions for Reconsideration pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). A 19 district court may grant a motion for reconsideration only where: (1) it is presented with newly 20 discovered evidence; (2) it has committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust; 21 or (3) there has been an intervening change in controlling law. Nunes v. Ashcroft, 375 F.3d 805, 22 807 (9th Cir. 2004); Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000); Sch. 23 Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). “A party 24 seeking reconsideration . . . must state with particularity the points of law or fact that the court has 25 overlooked or misunderstood. Changes in legal or factual circumstances that may entitle the 26 movant to relief also must be stated with particularity.” L.R. 59-1. The Court finds that it has not 27 been presented with newly discovered evidence; has not committed clear error or rendered a 28 manifestly unjust ruling; and that there has been no intervening change in controlling law. Nor has 1 Plaintiff stated with particularity any points of law or fact that the Court has overlooked o 2 ||misunderstood. On December 27, 2021, the Court dismissed Plaintiffs action on the basis tha 3 || Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that she had exhausted her administrative remedies or stated a vali 4 constitutional claim. Plaintiff's newly filed motions do not suggest that the Court’s earlier rulin 5 || was in error. Instead, Plaintiff attempts to offer new evidence proving her compliance with the IR 6 |}administrative procedure, which she admits she finalized only after she filed suit. This ne 7 |{evidence does not provide a basis for reconsideration under FRCP 59(e) because it does no 8 ||demonstrate that Plaintiff administratively exhausted her claims prior to filing suit, as is require 9 || by law. 10 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the [40] Motion to Amend/Correct and [42] Motio 11 || for Hearing to Reinstate Civil Action as Motions for Reconsideration are DENIED. 12 B DATED this 18" day of August, 2022. 14 15 AK RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II 17 UNITED STATE DISTRICT JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28