Griego v. CHAPS Housing Assistant Program

District Court, D. Nevada·Decided May 29, 2025·No. 2:24-cv-00653·Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 4 APRIL GRIEGO, 5 Case No. 2:24-cv-00653-ART-NJK Plaintiff, 6 vs. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 7 CHAPS HOUSING ASSISTANT AND ENTRY OF DEFAULT PROGRAM, et al., (ECF Nos. 17, 18) 8 Defendants. 9 10 Plaintiff April Griego brought this action against Defendants Allysa Antos, 11 Rececca Momodu, and the CHAPS Housing Assistant Program alleging race and 12 disability discrimination. On February 18, 2025, the Court entered an order 13 dismissing Plaintiff’s second amended complaint without prejudice but without 14 leave to amend because Plaintiff had failed to establish federal subject matter 15 jurisdiction over her claims. (ECF No. 16.) Plaintiff subsequently filed a motion 16 for reconsideration (ECF No. 17) and a motion for entry of Clerk’s default (ECF 17 No. 18) which the Court now considers. For the reasons discussed below, the 18 Court denies both motions. 19 I. Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 17) 20 A district court may reconsider an interlocutory order for cause, so long as 21 it retains jurisdiction. LR 59-1(a). Reconsideration may be appropriate if the 22 district court “(1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear 23 error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening 24 change in controlling law.” Smith v. Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist., 727 F.3d 950, 955 (9th 25 Cir. 2013) (citing School Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 26 1993)); see also LR 59-1(a). 27 A district court may also reconsider an order after final judgment in a case 28 under either Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) or 60(b). “A district court may 1 grant a Rule 59(e) motion if it ‘is presented with newly discovered evidence, 2 committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.” 3 Wood v. Ryan, 759 F.3d 1117, 1121 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting McDowell v. 4 Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 1255 (9th Cir. 1999) (en banc). Rule 60(b) permits 5 reconsideration upon “a showing of (1) mistake, surprise, or excusable neglect; 6 (2) newly discovered evidence; (3) fraud; (4) a void judgment; (5) a satisfied or 7 discharged judgment; or (6) ‘extraordinary circumstances’ which would justify 8 relief.” ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d at 1263. 9 Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration does not meet any of the above 10 standards. Plaintiff’s motion states that she has submitted evidence showing that 11 her rights were violated. However, her motion does not explain why 12 reconsideration is warranted under any of the above standards. Plaintiff’s 13 complaint was dismissed because she failed to show that the Court had federal 14 subject matter jurisdiction, which remains true. The Court therefore denies 15 Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration. 16 II. Motion for Entry of Clerk’s Default (ECF No. 18) 17 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a), “[w]hen a party against 18 whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise 19 defend . . . the clerk must enter the party’s default.” 20 Plaintiff’s motion appears to request an entry of default based on the fact 21 that Defendants did not respond to Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration filed on 22 March 6, 2025. However, according to the docket, Defendants were never served 23 in this action. Thus, Defendants have not failed to plead or otherwise defend this 24 action, and the entry of Clerk’s default is not warranted. The Court will therefore 25 deny Plaintiff’s motion for entry of default. 26 III. Conclusion 27 It is therefore ordered that Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 28 17) is DENIED. 1 It is further ordered that Plaintiffs motion for entry of Clerk’s default (ECF 2 || No. 18) is DENIED. 3 It is further ordered that the Clerk of the Court is ordered ENTER 4 || JUDGMENT in this case dismissing Plaintiffs claims without prejudice (per ECF 5 || No. 16). 6 Dated this 29th day of May 2025. 7 8 Ana jlosed Jer 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Griego v. CHAPS Housing Assistant Program, (D. Nev. 2025).

Griego v. CHAPS Housing Assistant Program (Griego v. CHAPS Housing Assistant Program) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Charles E. McDowell Jr. v. Arthur Calderon, Warden
197 F.3d 1253 (Ninth Circuit, 1999)
Jacqlyn Smith v. Clark County School District
727 F.3d 950 (Ninth Circuit, 2013)
Joseph Wood, III v. Charles Ryan
759 F.3d 1117 (Ninth Circuit, 2014)