Scott v. State of Nevada ex rel NDOC

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: January 23, 2025
• Docket: 3:23-cv-00301
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 JAMES EDWARD SCOTT, III, Case No. 3:23-cv-00301-MMD-CSD

7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 STATE OF NEVADA EX REL. NDOC, et 9 al.,

10 Defendants.

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