Scott v. Flurher

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: January 23, 2025
• Docket: 3:23-cv-00277
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 JAMES EDWARD SCOTT, III, Case No. 3:23-cv-00277-MMD-MDC

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

11 I. SUMMARY 12 On April 17, 2024, the Court dismissed this action with prejudice and without leave 13 to amend as duplicative of claims that Plaintiff James Scott was pursuing in another 14 lawsuit, and the Clerk of Court entered judgment two days later. (ECF Nos. 7, 8.) Over 15 eight months later, Plaintiff filed a motion under “NRCP 60(b)(1)” for “global 16 reconsideration of all screening orders” in 34 of his lawsuits, arguing the Court mistakenly 17 failed to recognize that Article 1, § 6 of the Nevada Constitution provides greater 18 protections and imposes less burdens than the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. 19 Constitution. (ECF No. 10 (“Motion”).) 20 II. DISCUSSION 21 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1) authorizes district courts to “relieve a party 22 or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding” because of 23 “(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered 24 evidence”; (3) “fraud”; (4) “the judgment is void”; (5) satisfaction, release, or discharge of 25 the judgment or reversal or vacation of earlier judgment; or “(6) any other reason that 26 justifies relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1). Motions under FRCP 60(b) “must be made within 27 a reasonable time—and for reasons (1), (2), and (3) no more than a year after the entry 28 of the judgment or order or the date of the proceeding.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 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. 10) is denied, and this action remains closed. 28 /// 1 It is further ordered that if Plaintiff wishes to seek reconsideration of an order 2 || entered in this closed action, then he must file a fully supported motion under Fed. R. Civ. 3 || P. 60 demonstrating that he is entitled to relief from the dismissal and judgment, 4 || identifying the specific part of the record that he seeks to reconsider, stating with 5 || particularity the points of law or fact that he believes entitle him to reconsideration, and 6 || showing that he filed the motion within a reasonable time. 7 DATED THIS 23" Day of January 2025.

9 MIRANDA M. DU 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28