McKnight v. Nevada Department of Administration ( 2024 )

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 * * * 6 TERRIA MCKNIGHT, Case No. 3:22-cv-00497-ART-CLB 7 Plaintiff, ORDER CLOSING CASE v. 8 NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF 9 ADMINISTRATION, et al., 10 Defendants. 11 12 Pro se Plaintiff Terria McKnight brings this action against two former 13 employers, the Nevada Department of Administration and the Nevada State 14 Department of Transportation, alleging they improperly fired her because of her 15 race and disability status. In December 2023, the Court granted Defendants’ 16 motion to dismiss and dismissed McKnight’s complaint without prejudice, 17 finding that McKnight failed to exhaust her administrative remedies and that 18 each of her federal claims are invalid. (ECF No. 41.) The Court gave McKnight 30 19 days to file a new complaint sufficiently asserting her remaining federal claims. 20 (Id.) Plaintiff did not file a new complaint, but instead filed a response to the 21 order. (ECF No. 42.) The Court construes this response as a motion to reconsider 22 its order granting the motion to dismiss. For the following reasons, the Court 23 denies McKnight’s motion and closes this case. 24 “Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with 25 newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was 26 manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” Sch. 27 Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 28 1 || procedural power to reconsider, rescind, or modify an interlocutory order for 2 || cause seen by it to be sufficient[,]” so long as it has jurisdiction. City of Los 3 || Angeles, Harbor Div. v. Santa Monica Baykeeper, 254 F.3d 882, 885 (9th Cir. 4 || 2001) (quotation and emphasis omitted); see also Smith v. Clark Cty. Sch. Dist., 5 || 727 F.3d 950, 955 (9th Cir. 2013). 6 In the motion, McKnight states that she cannot afford to continue the case 7 || due to financial hardship. (ECF No. 42 at 1.) McKnight also argues that she did 8 || exhaust administrative remedies and that she complied with service 9 || requirements. (Id. at 2-3.) McKnight has not presented newly discovered 10 || evidence, shown that the Court committed clear error or that the initial decision 11 || was manifestly unjust, or argued that there has been an intervening change in 12 || controlling law. The Court therefore denies McKnight’s motion to reconsider. 13 The Court directs the Clerk of Court to close this case and enter judgment 14 || accordingly. 15 16 Dated this 12th day of November 2024. 17 18 Aras plod Td 19 ANNE R.TRAUM ———Ci*” 20 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28