Scott v. Cobb

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: January 14, 2025
• Docket: 3:23-cv-00250
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 JAMES EDWARD SCOTT, III, Case No. 3:23-cv-00250-MMD-CLB

7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 COBB, et al., 9 Defendants. 10

11 I. SUMMARY 12 On September 23, 2024, the Court dismissed this action with prejudice because 13 Plaintiff James Scott failed to state a claim for relief, and the Clerk of Court entered 14 judgment the next day. (ECF Nos. 9, 10.) Over three months later, Plaintiff filed a motion 15 under “NRCP 60(b)(1)” for “global reconsideration of all screening orders” in 34 of his 16 lawsuits, arguing the Court mistakenly failed to recognize that Article 1, § 6 of the Nevada 17 Constitution provides greater protections and imposes less burdens than the Eighth 18 Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. (ECF No. 12.) 19 II. DISCUSSION 20 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) 60(b)(1) authorizes district courts to 21 “relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding” 22 because of “(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly 23 discovered evidence”; (3) “fraud”; (4) “the judgment is void”; (5) satisfaction, release, or 24 discharge of the judgment or reversal or vacation of earlier judgment; or “(6) any other 25 reason that justifies relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1). Motions under FRCP 60(b) “must be 26 made within a reasonable time—and for reasons (1), (2), and (3) no more than a year 27 after the entry of the judgment or order or the date of the proceeding.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 28 60(c)(1). 2 vacate or set aside the dismissal and judgment. It is further denied because Plaintiff does 3 not identify the part of the record in this action that he moves the Court to reconsider, and 4 he provides no legal authority supporting his underlying argument or showing that his 5 motion was filed within a reasonable time. See, e.g., LR 7-2(d) (explaining that “[t]he 6 failure of a moving party to file points and authorities in support of the motion constitutes 7 a consent to the denial of the motion”); General Order No. 2021-05 at 5, § 3(g) (same). 8 Plaintiff is cautioned that filing a “global” motion that generically seeks relief in dozens of 9 lawsuits is an abusive litigation practice that strains the Court’s limited resources and will 10 not be tolerated. 11 Finally, to the extent Plaintiff contends that Article 1, § 6 of the Nevada Constitution 12 affords him more protections and imposes lesser burdens on him than the Eighth 13 Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, “the Nevada Supreme Court has noted the similarity 14 between the federal and state constitutions, and frequently looks to federal precedent to 15 guide their analysis.” Meeks v. Nev. Dep’t of Corr., Case No. 3:18-cv-00431-MMD-WGC, 16 2020 WL 8084979, at *19 (D. Nev. Nov. 10, 2020) (collecting cases); accord Naovarath 17 v. State, 779 P.2d 944, 949 n.6 (Nev. 1989) (holding that sentence of life without the 18 possibility of parole for a mentally and emotionally disabled thirteen-year-old child violated 19 state and federal constitutions because both “proscribe cruel and unusual punishment”). 20 And federal courts apply the same legal standards to claims under the cruel and unusual 21 punishment provision of the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as they do to 22 claims under the cruel or unusual punishment provision of Article 1, § 6 of the Nevada 23 Constitution. See Cardenas-Ornelas v. Wickham, Case No. 2:21-cv-00030-ART-VCF, 24 2024 WL 4368152, at *5 (D. Nev. Sept. 30, 2024) (collecting cases). 25 III. CONCLUSION 26 It is therefore ordered that the motion for reconsideration of all screening orders 27 (ECF No. 12) is denied, and this action remains closed. 28 If Plaintiff wishes to seek reconsideration of an order entered in this closed action, 1 || then he must file a fully supported motion under FRCP 60 demonstrating that he is entitled 2 || to relief from the dismissal and judgment, identifying the specific part of the record that 3 || he seeks to reconsider, stating with particularity the points of law or fact that he believes 4 || entitle him to reconsideration, and showing that he filed the motion within a reasonable 5 || time. 6 The Clerk of Court is directed to send Plaintiff a courtesy copy of this order by 7 || directing it to Northern Nevada Correctional Center’s law library." 8 DATED THIS 14" Day of January 2025.

10 MIRANDA M. DU 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ||; ‘Plaintiff filed a change-of-address notice stating that he resides in Florida, ECF No. 11, but he listed the prison’s address on the reconsideration motion.