Summary
This United States District Court order denies a pro se state prisoner’s motion for global reconsideration of screening orders across 34 pending lawsuits. The court found the motion procedurally deficient because it lacked specific record citations, failed to demonstrate timely filing, and constituted an abusive litigation practice. Additionally, the court rejected the plaintiff’s substantive argument that Article 1, § 6 of the Nevada Constitution provides broader protections against cruel and unusual punishment than the Eighth Amendment, clarifying that federal courts apply identical legal standards to both provisions.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the court may grant a global motion for reconsideration of multiple orders without particularized points of law or fact and without a timely filing.
Holdings
- The motion for global reconsideration is denied because the plaintiff failed to identify the specific part of the record and to file the motion within a reasonable time.
Key quotations
“The court possesses the inherent power to reconsider an interlocutory order for cause, so long as the court retains jurisdiction.”
“A party seeking reconsideration under [LR 59-1] must state with particularity the points of law or fact that the court has overlooked or misunderstood.”
Factual background
James Scott, a Nevada state prisoner, moved for global reconsideration of all screening orders in thirty‑four of his lawsuits, arguing that Article 1, § 6 of the Nevada Constitution provides greater protections than the Eighth Amendment.
Procedural history
Plaintiff, a state prisoner, filed a motion under Nevada Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1) seeking global reconsideration of screening orders in 34 lawsuits. The district court denied the motion for failure to identify specific parts of the record and to show timely filing.