Albanese v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department ( 2019 )

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 GRACE ALBANESE, ) 4 ) Plaintiff, ) Case No.: 2:17-cv-01087-GMN-GWF 5 vs. ) 6 ) ORDER LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE ) 7 DEPARTMENT, ) ) 8 Defendant. ) ) 9 10 11 On March 6, 2018, the Court entered an Order, (ECF No. 71), dismissing pro se Plaintiff 12 Grace Albanese’s (“Plaintiff”) Complaint, (ECF No. 1-1), and closing the instant case. 13 Subsequently, Plaintiff filed numerous Motions for Leave of Vexatious Order, (ECF Nos. 223, 14 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235), which the Court construes as Motions for Reconsideration. 15 “[A] motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual 16 circumstances.” Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003) (citation omitted). 17 Reconsideration is appropriate where: (1) the court is presented with newly discovered 18 evidence, (2) the court committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) 19 if there is an intervening change in controlling law. School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County v. 20 ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). 21 Upon review of Plaintiff’s Motions, the Court finds that there are no grounds for 22 reconsideration. Accordingly, 23 /// 24 /// 25 1 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motions for Leave of Vexatious Order, 2 (ECF Nos. 223, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235), are DENIED. 3 DATED this _8__ day of October, 2019. 4 5 ___________________________________ Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge 6 United States District Court 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25