Bolero v. McCarley ( 2024 )

1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 4 Bolero, Case No. 2:24-cv-01761-CDS-MDC 5 Plaintiff Order Denying Defendant’s Motion to Reopen Case and Request for 6 v. Hearing, and Striking Rogue Filings 7 Amanda McCarley, [ECF Nos. 18, 19, 20, 21] 8 Defendant 9 10 Pro se defendant Amanda McCarley filed a motion to reopen this case (ECF No. 18), 11 which I construe as a motion for reconsideration of my order remanding this action to Las Vegas 12 Justice Court (ECF No. 17).1 The same day, McCarley filed a second application to proceed in 13 forma pauperis (IFP) (ECF No. 19), a notice of bankruptcy (ECF No. 20), and a response to my 14 remand order (ECF No. 21). For the reasons set forth here, I deny the motion for reconsideration 15 and IFP application, and strike the rogue filings. 16 I. Legal Standard 17 Motions for reconsideration offer “an extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the 18 interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 19 (9th Cir. 2003) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). “Indeed, ‘a motion for 20 reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district 21 court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an 22 intervening change in the controlling law.’” Id. (quoting Kona Enterprises, Inc. v. Est. of Bishop, 229 23 F.3d 877, 883 (9th Cir. 2000)). A motion to reconsider must provide a court with valid grounds 24 for reconsideration. Valid grounds include showing some valid reason why the court should 25 reconsider its prior decision and setting forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to 26 1 I find this matter suitable for disposition without a hearing. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; Local Rule 78-1. 1 persuade the court to reverse its prior decision. See Frasure v. United States, 256 F. Supp. 2d 1180, 2 1183 (D. Nev. 2003) (citing All Hawaii Tours, Corp. v. Polynesian Cultural Ctr., 116 F.R.D. 645, 648–49 3 (D. Haw. 1987), rev’d on other grounds, 855 F.2d 860 (9th Cir. 1988)). 4 The Ninth Circuit directs courts “to make reasonable allowances for pro se litigants and 5 to read pro se papers liberally.” McCabe v. Arave, 827 F.2d 634, 640 (9th Cir. 1987). This district’s 6 local rules regarding civil cases require that any motion for reconsideration “must state with 7 particularity the points of law or fact that the court has overlooked or misunderstood. Changes 8 in legal or factual circumstances that may entitle the movant to relief also must be stated with 9 particularity.” LR 59-1(a). 10 II. Discussion 11 McCarley’s motion fails to show that reconsideration of my previous order is warranted. 12 She does not proffer any newly discovered evidence, demonstrate that I committed clear error, 13 nor show that there was an intervening change in the controlling law that would warrant 14 reconsideration of my prior decision. It appears McCarley misapprehends the applicable 15 standard for establishing federal jurisdiction. In her motion, McCarley argues that she is 16 requesting a hearing to demonstrate tax-violations and other financial misconduct. Mot., ECF 17 No. 18 at 1, 3. But, what McCarley is alleging is not relevant to this court’s determination 18 regarding subject matter jurisdiction. “As a general rule, federal question jurisdiction is based on 19 the specific law on which plaintiff bases its complaint. The well-established rule under 20 28 U.S.C. § 1331 requires that a federal question ‘must be disclosed upon the face of the 21 complaint, unaided by the answer…and ‘the complaint itself will not avail as a basis of 22 jurisdiction in so far as it goes beyond a statement of the plaintiff’s cause of action and 23 anticipates or replies to a probable defense.’” U.S. Bank Nat. Ass’n ND v. Strand, 243 F. Supp. 2d 1139, 24 1141 (D. Or. 2002) (quoting Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Texaco, Inc., 415 U.S. 125, 127 (1974)). No 25 exception to this rule applies here. Consequently, McCarley’s motion for reconsideration is 26 denied. 1 McCarley also filed additional documents in this closed action, specifically, a notice of bankruptcy and a response to my order remanding this action to the Las Vegas Justice Court. 3]| ECF No. 20; ECF No. 21. These are considered rogue and stricken from the record. Spurlock v. 4} F.B.L, 69 F.3d 1010, 1016 (9th Cir. 1995) (the district court has inherent authority to strike improper filings “to promulgate and enforce rules for the management of litigation”). Conclusion 7 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that McCarley’s motion to reopen, which I have 8|| construed as a motion for reconsideration [ECF No. 18] is DENIED. 9 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that McCarley’s second motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [ECF No. 19] is DENIED as moot.’ 11 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the notice of bankruptcy [ECF No. 20] and response [ECF No. 21] are STRICKEN. 3 McCarley is again reminded that this matter is closed and therefore she may not file any documents in this case. 15 Date: November 19, 2024 /) 16 Lf □□□ 8 Unie States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JWT This motion is moot because this case is closed.