Price v. Daniels ( 2024 )

1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 4 Edmond Paul Price, Case No. 2:20-cv-00894-CDS-DJA 5 Plaintiff Order Granting in Part Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration 6 v. 7 Charles Daniels, et al., [ECF No. 37] 8 Defendants 9 10 This is a civil-rights action brought by pro se plaintiff Edmond Paul Price in 2020 to 11 redress constitutional violations that he claims he suffered while incarcerated at High Desert 12 State Prison (“HDSP”). See Compl., ECF No. 1-1. On June 17, 2022, I entered an order granting 13 defendant Mark Nelson’s motion to dismiss and closing the case (Order, ECF No. 31) and 14 separately entered judgment in favor of defendants.1 J., ECF No. 32. On March 21, 2024, Price 15 filed a motion requesting a status update, which included a request to reopen the case. ECF No. 16 35. I granted the motion in part by providing a case status update but denied Price’s request to 17 reopen his case. Order, ECF No. 36. Price now moves for reconsideration of my denial to reopen 18 the case, or alternatively, requests that the court issue a certificate of appealability. ECF No. 37. 19 For the reasons herein, I grant in part and deny in part Price’s motion for reconsideration by 20 reopening the case, and deny as moot his request for a certificate of appealability. 21 I. Procedural History 22 Price brought this action almost four years ago against former Nevada Department of 23 Corrections (“NDOC”) Director Charles Daniels2 and other defendants alleging “callous and 24 wanton disregard to serious medical needs causing significant injury[.]” Compl., ECF No. 1-1 at 25 1 The motion to dismiss incorporated, in the alternative, a motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 18. I 26 did not address the summary judgment motion on the merits. 2 Defendant served as the NDOC Director at the time of the complaint. Compl., ECF No. 1-1. 1 1. On January 31, 2022, Nelson filed a motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, a motion for 2 summary judgment, asserting that this action must be dismissed because Price failed to exhaust 3 available administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”). 4 ECF Nos. 18; 19. On May 17, 2022, this matter was administratively reassigned to me. ECF No. 5 29. Because Price had not filed an opposition to Nelson’s motions after he was provided 6 extended time to do so, I granted Nelson’s motion to dismiss and dismissed the complaint 7 without prejudice. Order, ECF No. 31. 8 Nearly two years later, on March 21, 2024, Price filed a motion requesting a status 9 update, which included a request to reopen the case. ECF No. 35. I reviewed the motion and 10 found that Price did not appear to list a single attempt, failed or otherwise, to file a document 11 with this court from July 2022 to March 2024. Order, ECF No. 36 at 2 n.2. Moreover, Price failed 12 to adequately explain why he was able to file documents in another case during the same period, 13 but not in this suit. Id. at 2. Consequently, I denied Price’s motion to reopen the case. Id. at 2. 14 II. Legal Framework 15 A motion to reconsider a final appealable order is appropriately brought under either 16 Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. United States v. Martin, 226 F.3d 17 1042, 1048 n.8 (9th Cir. 2000). A motion for reconsideration is not an avenue to present 18 arguments already raised; that is, a motion for reconsideration is not a mechanism for an 19 unsuccessful party to reiterate arguments previously presented. See Maraziti v. Thorp, 52 F.3d 252, 20 255 (9th Cir. 1995); Khan v. Fasano, 194 F. Supp. 2d 1134, 1136 (S.D. Cal. 2001) (“A party cannot 21 have relief under this rule merely because he or she is unhappy with the judgment.”). “In order 22 for a party to demonstrate clear error, the moving party’s arguments cannot be the same as those 23 made earlier.” Glavor v. Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc., 879 F. Supp. 1028, 1033 (N.D. Cal. 1994) (citing 24 Backlund v. Barnhart, 778 F.2d 1386, 1388 (9th Cir. 1985)). 25 Under Rule 60(b), reconsideration is appropriate only upon a showing of: (1) mistake, 26 inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence; (3) an adverse 1 party’s fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct; (4) a void judgment; (5) a satisfied, 2 released, or discharged judgment; or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of 3 the judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b); see also Kona Enters. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th 4 Cir. 2000) (a motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual 5 circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed 6 clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law). 7 A party can obtain relief under Rule 60(b) only upon an adequate showing of exceptional 8 or extraordinary circumstances. Maraziti, 52 F.3d at 254. Errors of law are cognizable under Rule 9 60(b)(1). Kingvision Pay–Per–View Ltd. v. Lake Alice Bar, 168 F.3d 347, 350 (9th Cir. 1999). 10 III. Analysis 11 Price moves for reconsideration on the basis that he believes the court erred in finding 12 that he did not attempt to file documents in this case between July 2022 and this instant 13 motion. See ECF No. 37 at 6. He alleges that he has “made several attempts to communicate and 14 file papers” with the court since July 2022. Id. at 1. For example, Price alleges that he attempted 15 to file documents by U.S. mail without success as the envelope he mailed to the court in July of 16 2022 was returned to him and marked “Do Not Post.” Id. at 6; Pl.’s Ex. C, ECF No. 35 at 11. Price 17 argues that the court erred in comparing his filings, or lack thereof, in this case to his filings in 18 his pending case in the Eastern District of California. Id. at 8–9. He clarifies that he has been able 19 to file documents by mail in that case as he cannot participate in electronic filing there.3 Id. 20 Further, Price attaches a new exhibit to the instant motion showing that he submitted 21 an inmate grievance to the NDOC regarding his difficulties filing documents in February 2024. 22 Id. at 23. Price now explains that it was only in the months after he submitted the grievance that 23 he was able to successfully file documents electronically “for the first time in almost 2 years,” 24 25 3 In that case, Price twice filed “notice of change of address,” on May 15, 2023, and on March 21, 2024. See 1:20-cv-00131-JLT-EPG at ECF Nos. 92; 125. Price explains that he was able to do so by filing the 26 documents by U.S. mail. ECF No. 37 at 2. Price addresses the court’s April 16, 2024 Order and argues that he attempted to update his address in this action “both by efile and U.S. mail to no avail[.]” Id. at 3. 1|| permitting him to file the March 21, 2024 status update request. Id. at 4-5. While I make no findings regarding Price’s allegations that the prison made his ability to litigate his cases difficult, I liberally construe Price to be arguing that dismissing this case was improper because 4|| he was unable to file his opposition to Nelson’s motion to dismiss or request an extended 5} deadline to do so between July 2022 and March 2024. 6 In the interest of justice and out of an abundance of caution, I grant Price’s motion to 7|| reopen the case and provide him an opportunity to respond to Nelson’s motions. I remind Price 8|| that failure to respond to Nelson’s motions may result in this action’s dismissal. I further remind Price to include all applicable information, arguments, and exhibits to the first round of his 10]| briefing in the future. V. Conclusion 12 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Price’s motion to reconsider [ECF No. 37] is 13|| GRANTED in part. The court grants Price’s request to reopen his case and denies issuing a 14]| certificate of appealability as moot. 15 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Price has until August 16, 2024 to file a response to 16|| Nelson’s motion to dismiss, which incorporates, in the alternative, a motion for summary judgment (ECF Nos. 18, 19). Failure to comply will result in this case being dismissed. Any 18|| reply is due seven days after Price’s opposition is docketed. 19 Dated: July 26, 2024 / / { 20 . LZ 21 aKke—— me Séates District Judge 23 24 25 26