Langford v. Dzurenda

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: January 10, 2020
• Docket: 3:19-cv-00155
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8 * * *

9 JUSTIN ODELL LANGFORD, et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-00155-MMD-WGC

10 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 11 JAMES DZURENDA, et al., 12 Defendants. 13

15 I. DISCUSSION 16 Plaintiff Justin Odell Langford, a pro se prisoner, previously filed an application to 17 proceed in forma pauperis and submitted a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 18 1983 that purported to be on behalf of himself and his father, Roger Dale Langford, who 19 is not a prisoner. (ECF No. 1, 1-1.) The Court informed both Justin Odell Langford and 20 Roger Dale Langford that Justin Odell Langford has no authority to represent anyone 21 other than himself and that he could not represent Roger Dale Langford. (ECF Nos. 6 22 and 7). The Court also informed Roger Dale Langford that, if he wished to pursue a legal 23 action, he must file his own complaint and either pay the filing fee or file an application to 24 proceed in forma pauperis for non-prisoners. (ECF No. 7 at 1-2.) 25 Roger Dale Langford subsequently filed a complaint and an application to proceed 26 in forma pauperis for non-prisoners. (ECF No. 17, 18). Justin Odell Langford filed a 27 document he characterized as “Judicial Notice” in which he appears to challenge the 1 Court’s ruling that he may not represent his father and asks for reinstatement of the 2 original complaint. (ECF No. 9.) The Court construes this as a motion for reconsideration 3 of its ruling that Justin Odell Langford may not represent his father in court. 4 A motion to reconsider must set forth “some valid reason why the court should 5 reconsider its prior decision” and set “forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to 6 persuade the court to reverse its prior decision.” Frasure v. United States, 256 F.Supp.2d 7 1180, 1183 (D. Nev. 2003). Reconsideration is appropriate if this Court “(1) is presented 8 with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was 9 manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” Sch. Dist. 10 No. 1J v. Acands, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). “A motion for reconsideration 11 is not an avenue to re-litigate the same issues and arguments upon which the court 12 already has ruled.” Brown v. Kinross Gold, U.S.A., 378 F.Supp.2d 1280, 1288 (D. Nev. 13 2005). 14 As the Court previously explained, pro se litigants have no authority to represent 15 anyone other than themselves. See Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n.1 (9th 16 Cir. 1995); C.E. Pope Equity Trust v. United States, 818 F.2d 696, 697 (9th Cir. 1987). 17 Plaintiff provides no valid basis for the Court to disregard this law. Therefore, Justin Odell 18 Langford may not represent Roger Dale Langford in this Court.1 The Court therefore 19 denies the motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 9). 20 II. CONCLUSION 21 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that ECF No. 9 is construed as a 22 motion for reconsideration of the ruling in ECF No. 6 and ECF No. 7 that Justin Odell 23 Langford may not represent Roger Dale Langford in court. 24 It is further ordered that the motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 9) is denied. 25 26 27 1 The Court also notes that it cannot reinstate the original complaint because the original complaint was not 1 It is further ordered that the Clerk of the Court is instructed to open a new case for 2 Roger Dale Langford and transfer his application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 3 17) and his first amended complaint (ECF No. 18) to the new case. The address of record 4 for Roger Dale Langford shall be 350 E. Surprise, Apt. 104, P.O. Box 942, Searchlight, 5 NV 89046. 6 DATED: January 10, 2020. 7

8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27