Scott v. Dialysis

United States District Court, District of Nevada · January 21, 2025 · No. 3:23-cv-00285

Summary

This United States District Court order denies a pro se prisoner’s motion for global reconsideration of screening orders across multiple lawsuits. The plaintiff argued that the Nevada Constitution affords greater protections against cruel and unusual punishment than the Eighth Amendment, but the court found no clear error or new evidence warranting reconsideration under Local Rule 59-1. The court also cautioned against filing generic, multi-case motions and noted that federal courts apply the same legal standards as Nevada courts for such constitutional claims.

Court
United States District Court, District of Nevada
Writing for the Court
Miranda M. Du
Jurisdiction
United States District Court, District of Nevada
Decision date
January 21, 2025
Docket number
3:23-cv-00285
Procedural posture
Motion to reconsider denied
Precedential value
nonprecedential
Disposition
dismissed

Topics

civil procedure

Practice areas

civil procedureconstitutional lawcivil rights

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the district court may deny a global motion for reconsideration under NRCP 60(b)(1) when the movant fails to state with particularity the points of law or fact and does not file within a reasonable time.

Holdings

  1. The court denied the motion because the plaintiff failed to provide particularized points of law or fact and did not demonstrate that the motion was filed within a reasonable time; the court retains inherent power to reconsider but requires particularity.

Key quotations

The court possesses the inherent power to reconsider an interlocutory order for cause, so long as the court retains jurisdiction.
It is therefore ordered that the motion for reconsideration of all screening orders (ECF No. 13) is denied.

Factual background

State prisoner James Scott filed a motion seeking global reconsideration of thirty‑four screening orders, arguing that the Nevada Constitution provides greater protections than the Eighth Amendment.

Procedural history

Prisoner James Scott filed a motion under NRCP 60(b)(1) for global reconsideration of all screening orders; the district court denied the motion.

Remand instructions

If Plaintiff wishes to seek reconsideration of an order entered in this action, he must file a unique, fully supported motion identifying the specific part of the record that he seeks to reconsider, stating with particularity the points of law or fact that he believes entitle him to relief, and showing that he filed the motion within a reasonable time.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…