Warren v. Hultenschmidt

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: April 14, 2025
• Docket: 3:23-cv-00543
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

4 KEITH ALLEN WARREN, Case No. 3:23-cv-00543-ART-CLB

5 Plaintiff, Order Granting Motion for v. Reconsideration, Denying Motion for 6 Docket Sheet as Moot DESIREE HULTENSCHMIDT, et al., 7 (ECF Nos. 31, 34) Defendants. 8 9 The Court screened pro se Plaintiff Keith Allen Warren’s third amended civil 10 rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 32.) The Court 11 concluded that Warren stated some colorable claims and dismissed two claims. 12 Warren has filed a motion for reconsideration. (ECF No. 34.) 13 Generally, a motion to reconsider must set forth “some valid reason why 14 the court should reconsider its prior decision” and set “forth facts or law of a 15 strongly convincing nature to persuade the court to reverse its prior 16 decision.” Frasure v. United States, 256 F.Supp.2d 1180, 1183 (D. Nev. 17 2003). Reconsideration is appropriate if this Court “(1) is presented with newly 18 discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was 19 manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” Sch. 20 Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). “A motion for 21 reconsideration is not an avenue to re-litigate the same issues and arguments 22 upon which the court already has ruled.” Brown v. Kinross Gold, U.S.A., 378 23 F.Supp.2d 1280, 1288 (D. Nev. 2005). 24 Here, the Court dismissed Claim 4—a claim about filing grievances and 25 Claim 6—a claim about medical treatment for his arm. (ECF No. 32.) Other 26 medical claims and a retaliation claim were allowed to proceed against specific 27 Defendants. The Court dismissed the two claims with prejudice and without leave 28 to amend because Warren had already been given three opportunities to amend 1 || his claims. Here, Warren does not challenge the dismissal of Claims 4 and 6 from 2 || this civil rights action. (ECF No. 34.) He asks only that the Court dismiss the 3 || claims without prejudice in order that he may, if necessary, pursue claims later 4 || in a separate civil rights complaint or complaints. The Court grants this limited 5 || reconsideration. Claims 4 and 6 are dismissed without prejudice. Warren may 6 || raise those claims in a separate complaint in a new case with a separate filing fee 7 || that would be subject to screening by the Court. 8 Next, Warren filed what he styled as a motion for civil docket sheet. (ECF 9 || No. 31.) His filing actually inquired about the cost to get a copy of the docket 10 || sheet. The Court filed a minute order instructing Warren on the cost and 11 || procedure to get a copy of the docket sheet. (ECF No. 36.) So the Court denies 12 || the motion as moot. 13 It is therefore ordered that Petitioner’s motion for limited reconsideration 14 || (ECF No. 34) is granted as set forth in this order. The Court dismisses Claim 4 15 || and Claim 6 from this complaint without prejudice to Petitioner’s ability to raise 16 || the claims in a separate complaint filed in a new case. 17 It is further ordered that Petitioner’s motion for civil docket sheet (ECF No. 18 || 31) is denied as moot. 19 20 Dated this 14t day of April 2025. 21 22 Ap jlosed den 23 ANNE R. TRAUM 24 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 25 26 27 28