Dakota Romero v. Brian Biagi, et al.

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: November 7, 2025
• Docket: 3:24-cv-00603
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 1 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 2 DAKOTA ROMERO, Case No. 3:24-cv-00603-ART-CLB 3 Plaintiff, ORDER 4 v.

5 BRIAN BIAGI, et al.,

6 Defendants.

7 DISCUSSION 8 On August 22, 2025, this Court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint in its 9 entirety for failure to state a claim with prejudice as amendment would be futile. 10 (ECF No. 9 at 10). Plaintiff had tried to sue various deputies, doctors, nurses, 11 and hospital employees at two different hospitals because of their inability to 12 effectively diagnose or treat his vomiting while at the hospital. (ECF No. 5). The 13 Court found that Plaintiff was challenging the quality of his medical treatment 14 which was not a constitutional violation. (ECF No. 9 at 7). The Clerk of the Court 15 closed the case and entered judgment accordingly. (ECF No. 10). The Court also 16 certified that any in forma pauperis appeal would not be taken in good faith under 17 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). (ECF No. 9 at 10). 18 Plaintiff now files a motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 11) and a motion 19 to inform the court (ECF No. 12). 20 A. Motion for Reconsideration 21 In the motion for reconsideration, Plaintiff asserts that he used the same 22 claims in his other case, 3:23-cv-623-ART-CSD, and that he wants to join the 23 two cases or at least have the opportunity to amend. (ECF No. 11). 24 A motion to reconsider must set forth “some valid reason why the court 25 should reconsider its prior decision” and set “forth facts or law of a strongly 26 convincing nature to persuade the court to reverse its prior decision.” Frasure 27 1 v. United States, 256 F.Supp.2d 1180, 1183 (D. Nev. 2003). Reconsideration is 2 appropriate if this Court “(1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, 3 (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if 4 there is an intervening change in controlling law.” Sch. Dist. No. 1J v. Acands, 5 Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). “A motion for reconsideration is not an 6 avenue to re-litigate the same issues and arguments upon which the court 7 already has ruled.” Brown v. Kinross Gold, U.S.A., 378 F.Supp.2d 1280, 1288 8 (D. Nev. 2005). 9 The Court denies Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration. Plaintiff has not 10 presented newly discovered evidence, demonstrated that the Court committed 11 clear error in the initial decision or that the decision was manifestly unjust, or 12 that there was an intervening change in controlling law. 13 Instead, Plaintiff states that he raised these same claims in a different 14 lawsuit, 3:23-cv-00623-ART-CSD. The Court notes that, in the other lawsuit, 15 Plaintiff is attempting to file an eighth amended complaint. See 3:23-cv-00623- 16 ART-CSD at ECF Nos. 108, 108-1. If Plaintiff is attempting to file duplicative 17 lawsuits, he should note that the practice is prohibited. See Cato v. United States, 18 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995) (citing Bailey v. Johnson, 846 F.2d 1019, 19 1021 (5th Cir.1988) (holding that repetitious litigation of virtually identical 20 causes of action is subject to dismissal as malicious)); Pittman v. Moore, 980 F.2d 21 994, 994-95 (5th Cir.1993) (holding that it is malicious for a “pauper” to file a 22 lawsuit that duplicates allegations of another pending federal lawsuit by the 23 same plaintiff). 24 B. Motion to Inform Court 25 On November 3, 2025, Plaintiff filed a motion to inform the court that he 26 has not received any e-files from the Northern Nevada Correctional Center 27 (“NNCC”) law librarian since October 3, 2025. (ECF No. 12). The Court denies 1 || this motion as moot. The last document the Court sent Plaintiff in this case was 2 || on September 12, 2025. 3 || II. CONCLUSION 4 It is therefore ordered that the motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 11) is 5 || denied. 6 It is further ordered that the motion to inform (ECF No. 12) is denied as 7 || moot. 8 No further documents may be filed in this case unless authorized by the 9 || various federal civil rules on judicial procedure. 10 11 DATED: November 7, 2025. 12

Is UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28