Williams v. Bean ( 2024 )

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 2 3 3 MATHEW L. WILLIAMS, Case No.: 2:24-cv-01034-RFB-MDC 4 4 Plaintiff, 5 ORDER 5 v. 6 (ECF No. 5) 6 JEREMY BEAN, et al., 7 7 Defendants. 8 8 9 1. DISCUSSION 9 10 On June 5, 2024, the Court issued an order denying Plaintiff’s incomplete 10 11 application to proceed in forma pauperis and directing Plaintiff to file a complete 11 12 application, including a financial certificate and an inmate trust fund account statement 12 13 for the previous six-month period. (ECF No. 3). Plaintiff filed the required documents, as 13 14 well as a motion for reconsideration. (ECF Nos. 4, 5). 14 15 A motion to reconsider must set forth “some valid reason why the court should 15 16 reconsider its prior decision” and set “forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to 16 17 persuade the court to reverse its prior decision.” Frasure v. United States, 256 F.Supp.2d 17 18 1180, 1183 (D. Nev. 2003). Reconsideration is appropriate if this Court “(1) is presented 18 19 with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was 19 20 manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” Sch. Dist. 20 21 No. 1J v. Acands, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). “A motion for reconsideration 21 22 is not an avenue to re-litigate the same issues and arguments upon which the court 22 23 already has ruled.” Brown v. Kinross Gold, U.S.A., 378 F.Supp.2d 1280, 1288 (D. Nev. 23 24 2005). 24 25 In his motion, Plaintiff states that he filed the necessary documents the same day 25 26 that he received the Court’s order and that it would cause an undue delay to require him 26 27 to start all over again and acquire new documentation from scratch. (ECF No. 5 at 2). 27 28 But the Court’s order does not require that Plaintiff file a new financial certificate and a 28 4| new inmate trust fund account statement for the previous six-month period. The □□□□□□□ 2| order only requires that Plaintiff file all the necessary documents for a complete 3] application to proceed in forma pauperis, which Plaintiff has now done. Although Plaintiff 4| filed his application to proceed in forma pauperis separately from his financial 5| documentation, the Court now considers Plaintiffs application to proceed in forma 6| pauperis complete and will consider the merits of the application at the appropriate time. 7\ WL CONCLUSION 8 It is therefore ordered that the Court considers Plaintiff's application to proceed in 9| forma pauperis (ECF No. 1) complete, and the Court will consider the merits of application 10| at the appropriate time. 11 It is further ordered that Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 5) is 42| DENIED as moot. DATED THIS 28th day of June 2024. ff ZA 14 f. tof, 15 A x ONA26 STATES MASISTRI TE JUDGE 17 UY 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28