Turner v. County of Washoe

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: August 4, 2025
• Docket: 3:23-cv-00407
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 KERA TURNER, et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-00407-ART-CSD 4 Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 5 v. RECONSIDER

6 COUNTY OF WASHOE, et al.,

7 Defendants.

8 9 Plaintiffs Kera and Joseph Turner bring this action against Defendants 10 Washoe County and six employees of its Child Protective Services division alleging 11 mistreatment during their child dependency proceedings and unjust retention of 12 their property by the Washoe County Sheriff’s Office. Before the Court is Plaintiff’s 13 “Ex-Parte Motion for Miscellaneous Administrative Relief” (ECF No. 46) and 14 Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider (ECF No. 61). For the reasons identified below, 15 the Court denies both motions. 16 I. BACKGROUND 17 The relevant facts are recited in detail in the Court’s order on Defendants’ 18 motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 44.) 19 Plaintiffs brought this action in August 2023, bringing claims challenging 20 aspects of their dependency proceedings and claims challenging the County’s 21 seizure of their property. (Id. at 5.) In August 2024, the Court granted in part and 22 denied in part Defendants’ motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 44.) The Court found that 23 three of Plaintiffs’ four dependency claims were barred by the Rooker-Feldman 24 doctrine and dismissed those claims with prejudice. (ECF No. 44 at 6–17.) The 25 Court allowed Plaintiffs’ First Amendment claim to proceed. (Id. at 15, 17.) The 26 Court allowed Plaintiffs to file a Second Amended Complaint alleging that claim 27 as well as a claim for violation of their Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. 28 (Id. at 17–18.) The Court dismissed Plaintiffs’ property claims but granted leave 1 to amend. (ECF No. 44 at 18–21.) The Court gave Plaintiffs thirty days to file a 2 Second Amended Complaint consistent with that order. (Id. at 21.) 3 Before the deadline, Plaintiffs filed an “Ex-Parte Motion for Miscellaneous 4 Administrative Relief,” which essentially requested more time to file their 5 complaint. (ECF No. 46.) Because this was not properly filed, and was effectively 6 replaced by the motion to reconsider, the Court denies that motion as moot. 7 In June 2025, Plaintiffs, now represented by counsel, filed the present 8 motion to reconsider which, among other things, requests more time to file a 9 Second Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 61.) 10 II. LEGAL STANDARD 11 A district court may reconsider an interlocutory order for cause, so long as 12 it retains jurisdiction. LR 59-1(a). Reconsideration may be appropriate if the 13 district court “(1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear 14 error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening 15 change in controlling law.” Smith v. Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist., 727 F.3d 950, 955 (9th 16 Cir. 2013) (citing School Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 17 1993)); see also LR 59-1(a). “Motions for reconsideration are disfavored. A movant 18 must not repeat arguments already presented unless (and only to the extent) 19 necessary to explain controlling, intervening law or to argue new facts.” LR 59- 20 1(b). Motions for reconsideration “must be brought within a reasonable time” and 21 “[l]ack of diligence or timeliness may result in denial of the motion.” Id. 22 III. DISCUSSION 23 1. Timeliness 24 Plaintiffs filed their motion for reconsideration ten months after this Court’s 25 order on the motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs’ current counsel was admitted to 26 practice in this case in November 2024, but waited until June 2025 to file this 27 motion for reconsideration. (See ECF Nos. 48, 61.) Counsel’s arguments that he 28 was diligent in filing this motion based on the combination of the winter holidays, 1 familiarization with Nevada law, and reviewing Defendants’ discovery, are 2 unpersuasive. 3 2. Clear Error 4 Plaintiffs request that the Court reconsider its dismissal of three claims 5 under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, arguing that its application of that doctrine 6 to Plaintiffs’ due process claims was in clear error. Plaintiffs cite a recent Ninth 7 Circuit decision, Miroth v. County of Trinity, 136 F.4th 1141 (9th Cir. 2025), but 8 do not argue that this case represents a change in controlling law. (ECF No. 61 9 at 8–9.) Plaintiffs repeat arguments they made in response to the motion to 10 dismiss more than a year ago (during which Plaintiffs were represented by prior 11 counsel). For example, Plaintiffs argue that the Court was incorrect to apply the 12 Rooker-Feldman doctrine because they are not seeking to appeal or challenge any 13 state court orders. (ECF No. 61 at 10.) Plaintiffs made the same argument in their 14 opposition to the motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 34 at 6–8.) The Court considered 15 and rejected those arguments in its order and declines to reconsider on that 16 basis. 17 3. Leave to Amend 18 Plaintiffs also seek leave to amend. The Court grants that request. However, 19 Plaintiffs may not have an unlimited “stay” to file their amended complaint, as 20 they appear to request. Plaintiffs may have an additional 30 days to file a Second 21 Amended Complaint curing the deficiencies outlined in the Court’s prior order. 22 Plaintiffs finally request that the Court allow Plaintiffs to “join” A.T., a 23 minor, to this proceeding. The Court construes this as a request to bring a claim 24 related to A.T. in their amended complaint. The Court previously granted 25 Plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint to include a Fourth and Fourteenth 26 Amendment claim related to A.T. (ECF No. 44 at 17–18.) Plaintiffs may do so in 27 their Second Amended Complaint. 28 1 IV. CONCLUSION 2 The Court therefore DENIES as moot Plaintiffs Ex-Parte Motion for 3 || Miscellaneous Administrative Relief (ECF No. 46). 4 The Court further DENIES Plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 5 || 61). 6 Plaintiffs may have until September 3, 2025, to file a Second Amended 7 || Complaint consistent with this order and the Court’s prior order. 8 9 DATED: August 4, 2025 10 1 A we Voted 12 13 ANNER.TRAUM 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28