Wood v. Ho

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: May 29, 2025
• Docket: 3:24-cv-00512
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 ANDREA WOOD, Case No. 3:24-cv-512-ART-CLB 4 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 5 v. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (ECF No. 17) 6 RODNEY Ho et al., 7 Defendants. 8 9 Plaintiff Andrea Wood brought this action alleging several claims against 10 Defendants Rodney Ho, Clement Holdings, Keven Wikenberry, Sgt Investment, 11 Contra Costa County, and Wilson Young. On January 14, 2025, the Court 12 entered an order adopting the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge 13 Baldwin, and dismissed this action without prejudice because Plaintiff had failed 14 to either pay the filing fee or fully complete an application to proceed in forma 15 pauperis (“IFP”) in compliance with the Court’s orders. (ECF No. 12.) The Court 16 then entered judgment in this action. (ECF No. 13.) On February 24, 2025, 17 Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s order dismissing this 18 action, which the Court now considers. (ECF No. 17.) For the reasons discussed 19 below, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion. 20 Although not explicitly referenced by Plaintiff in her motion, the Court will 21 construe this as a motion for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil 22 Procedure 59(e) or 60(b). A motion for reconsideration after final judgment may 23 be brought under either rule. Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, 24 Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). “A district court may grant a Rule 59(e) 25 motion if it ‘is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, 26 or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.’” Wood v. Ryan, 759 27 F.3d 1117, 1121 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 28 1255 (9th Cir. 1999) (en banc). “[A] Rule 59(e) motion is an ‘extraordinary remedy, 1 || to be used sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial 2 || resources.” Id. (quoting Kona Enters., Inc. v. Est. of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 3 || (9th Cir. 2000). A Rule 59(e) motion must be filed no more than 28 days after the 4 || entry of the judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). A party may also seek relief under 5 || Rule 60(b), which permits reconsideration upon “a showing of (1) mistake, 6 || surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence; (3) fraud; (4) a void 7 || judgment; (5) a satisfied or discharged judgment; or (6) ‘extraordinary 8 || circumstances’ which would justify relief.” ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d at 1263. 9 The Court finds that Plaintiff has not met either of these standards 10 || justifying relief. Plaintiff was given many opportunities to complete an IFP 11 || application or pay the filing fee. As discussed in this Court’s order dismissing this 12 || action, Plaintiff was notified several times by the Court that the filing fee or IFP 13 || application needed to be completed. Plaintiff made other filings with the Court 14 || but did not comply with the Court’s order to pay the filing fee or submit an IFP 15 || application. While Plaintiff has attached to her motion to reconsider receipts 16 || indicating she sent payment to the Court on February 6, 2024, this was after her 17 || deadlines to do so and after the case had been closed. 18 Because this action was dismissed without prejudice, Plaintiff is free to file 19 || the same claims in a new action. 20 Conclusion 21 It is therefore ordered that Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 22 || 17) is DENIED. 23 It is further ordered that Plaintiffs other motions (ECF Nos. 16, 18) are 24 || DENIED AS MOOT. 25 Dated: May 29, 2025 26 Ana jlosead Jen 27 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 28