Banark v. Dzurenda ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 * * * 7 LONNIE LEE BANARK, Case No. 2:16-CV-2555 JCM (GWF) 8 Plaintiff(s), ORDER 9 v. 10 JAMES DZURENDA, et al., 11 Defendant(s). V 12 13 Presently before the court is the matter of Banark v. Dzurenda et al., case no. 2:16-cv- 14 02555-JCM-GWF. On December 20, 2018, the court granted defendants’ motion for summary 15 judgment and dismissed plaintiff Lonnie Lee Banark’s single remaining retaliation claim. (ECF 16 No. 59). Plaintiff has filed an objection to the court’s decision to close case (ECF No. 61) and a 17 motion to reopen the case (ECF No. 64). Defendants Nathan Hughes and Holly Skulstad 18 responded to the objection (ECF No. 63) and notified the court that they considered the motion 19 to reopen the case to be a reply thereto (see ECF No. 65). 20 Ordinarily, “[t]he failure of a moving party to file points and authorities in support of the 21 motion constitutes a consent to the denial of the motion.” LR 7-2(d). However, “the standard 22 practice of federal courts is to interpret filings by pro se litigants liberally and to afford greater 23 latitude as a matter of judicial discretion.” Ricotta v. California, 4 F. Supp. 2d 961, 986 (S.D. 24 Cal. 1998). On the other hand, this court “lacks the power to act as a party’s lawyer, even for pro 25 se litigants.” Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1219 (9th Cir. 2007). 26 Plaintiff provides no basis for the court to reconsider its order granting summary 27 judgment. (ECF No. 61). Plaintiff does not argue that he exhausted his administrative remedies, 28 1 | that there has been an intervening change in law,' or that there is newly discovered evidence. Id. The court—even when liberally construing plaintiffs motion—is compelled to deny the motion. 3 Accordingly, 4 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that plaintiff's objection to 5 | the court’s decision to close the case (ECF No. 61) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED. 6 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to reopen case (ECF No. 64) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED. 8 DATED December 3, 2019. 9 tis ©. Atala 10 UNITED'STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 00 ' Plaintiff mentions an appeal before the Ninth Circuit and a habeas corpus proceeding 28 | but does not explain in any way how those unrelated actions have any bearing on the instant case. es C. Mahan District Judge _2-