Opinion · District Court, D. Nevada
Holmes v. Clark County
Holmes v. Clark County, No. 2:23-cv-01988, UP11126516 (District Court, D. Nevada Aug. 21, 2025)
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- District Court, D. Nevada
- Jurisdiction
- Nevada
- Date
- 2025-08-21
- Topic
- general
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 * * * 7 MICHAEL HOLMES, Case No.2:23-CV-1988 JCM (DJA) 8 Plaintiff(s), ORDER 9 v. 10 CLARK COUNTY, 11 Defendant(s). 12 13 Presently before the court is plaintiff Michael Holmes’ motion to alter or amend judgment 14 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). (ECF No. 33). Defendants Clark County et al., 15 filed a response (ECF No. 34), to which plaintiff replied (ECF No. 35). 16 17 I. BACKGROUND 18 On December 1, 2023, plaintiff Michael Holmes filed an employment discrimination action 19 against defendants Clark County et al. under Title VII & the Civil Rights Act of 1866. (ECF No. 20 1).
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed Holmes v. Clark County. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
1
2
3
4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA
6 * * *
7 MICHAEL HOLMES, Case No.2:23-CV-1988 JCM (DJA)
8 Plaintiff(s),
ORDER
9 v.
10 CLARK COUNTY,
11 Defendant(s).
12
13 Presently before the court is plaintiff Michael Holmes’ motion to alter or amend judgment
14 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). (ECF No. 33). Defendants Clark County et al.,
15 filed a response (ECF No. 34), to which plaintiff replied (ECF No. 35).
16
17 I. BACKGROUND
18 On December 1, 2023, plaintiff Michael Holmes filed an employment discrimination action
19 against defendants Clark County et al. under Title VII & the Civil Rights Act of 1866. (ECF No.
20 1). Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on March 26, 2024. (ECF No. 17). This court granted
21 defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint on October 29, 2024. (ECF. No. 31). The
22 basis of the dismissal was whether plaintiff timely filed his claims within the 90-day statute of
23 limitations period. The court found that he did not timely file his claims and, furthermore, did not
24 find a basis for equitably tolling the limitations period.
25 On November 26, 2024, plaintiff filed the present motion to alter or amend the judgment
26 of the motion to dismiss on the grounds of (1) clear legal error and (2) manifest injustice. (ECF
27 No. 33).
28
1 II. LEGAL STANDARD
2
Rule 59(e) “permits a district court to reconsider and amend a previous order[;]” however,
3
the “rule offers an extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of finality and
4
conservation of judicial resources.” Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934
, 945 (9th Cir. 2003) 5 6 (internal quotations omitted). A motion for reconsideration “should not be granted, absent highly 7 unusual circumstances.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop,229 F.3d 877
, 890 (9th Cir. 2000).
8
See LR 59-1(b) (“Motions for reconsideration are disfavored.”).
9
A motion for reconsideration “may not be used to raise arguments or present evidence for
10
the first time when they could reasonably have been raised earlier in the litigation.” Kona Enters.,
11
12 229 F.3d at 890. Further, a “movant must not repeat arguments already presented unless (and only
13 to the extent) necessary to explain controlling, intervening law or to argue new facts.” LR 59-1(b).
14
Thus, the Ninth Circuit has provided that “[r]econsideration is appropriate if the district
15
court (1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial
16
decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” School
17
18 Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F3d 1255
, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993); Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). “A motion
19 to alter or amend a judgment must be filed no later than 28 days after the enter of the judgment.”
20
Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e).
21
III. DISCUSSION
22
23 The court has sufficient information to decide the instant motions based on the filings and
24 thus denies any request for oral argument. LR 78-1.
25
A. Rule 6(a)(3)
26
Plaintiff does not present the court with new facts. Rather, plaintiff’s main argument for
27
relief is that FRCP 6(a)(3) is the appropriate rule, not the diligence requirements of equitable
28
1 tolling that this court applied in deciding the motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 35 at 2).
2
FRCP 6(a)(3)(A) establishes that “[u]nless the court orders otherwise, if the clerk's office
3
is inaccessible . . . on the last day for filing . . ., then the time for filing is extended to the first
4
accessible day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday.”
5
6 Traditionally, FRCP 6 referred to the clerk’s physical office. Id. at 1304. However,
7 amendments to the rule expanded what it means for the clerk’s office to be “inaccessible”:
8
The text of the rule no longer refers to “weather or other conditions” as the reason for the
9 inaccessibility of the clerk’s office. The reference to “weather” was deleted from the text to
underscore that inaccessibility can occur for reasons unrelated to weather, such as an outage of the
10 electronic filing system. . .The rule does not attempt to define inaccessibility. Rather, the concept
will continue to develop through caselaw[.] (internal citation omitted).
11
Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)(3) advisory committee’s notes to 2009 amendment.
12
13
The reconceptualization of accessibility comports with the growing body of caselaw
14
suggesting that, “given the advent of electronic case filing (ECF), a clerk's office is no longer
15
‘inaccessible just because it may be physically closed on a particular day.” McElveen v. Westport
16
17 Recovery Corp., 310 F. Supp. 3d 1374, 1378
(S.D. Fla); see, e.g., Peter T. Erdelyi & Assocs. V. 18 Optimum Seismic, No. CV 20-11066-JVS(GJSx),2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 156706
, at *7-8 (“The
19
Court agrees with the growing body of case law that inaccessibility under Rule 6(a)(3) includes
20
situations where the Court’s CM/ECF filing system is down.”); Manuel v. Barr, 755 F.App’x 694,
21
695 (9th Cir. 2019) (applying FRAP’s equivalent rule to extend the deadline where the only
22
23 evidence presented suggested that the ‘technical difficulties’ were a result of a CM/ECF court
24 system malfunction).
25
Accordingly, a clerk’s office can be inaccessible due to technical outages related to filing
26
with the CM/ECF system. A party successfully establishing that such inaccessibility occurred on
27
the last filing day would have until the “first accessible day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal
28
1 holiday to file their complaint.” FRCP 6(a)(3)(A).1
2
Here, plaintiff attempted to file his complaint at 10:00 p.m. on November 30, 2023, the last
3
filing day. (ECF No. 35). See FRCP 6(a)(3)(A). The clerk’s office was physically closed at that
4
time. Whether the complaint was timely filed therefore depends on whether the clerk’s office was
5
6 “inaccessible” due to a technical issue. This court finds that it was.
7 Plaintiff had until 11:59 p.m. that night to file the complaint within the statutory period.
8
See LR IC 3-1. The plaintiff’s paralegals attempted several times to file the complaint before
9
midnight. (ECF No. 4). They were unsuccessful. According to the plaintiff, the paralegals have
10
successfully filed more than one hundred documents via Pacer and have encountered this issue
11
12 only once before. (ECF No. 35, at 4). Absent evidence to the contrary and construing the facts in
13 the light favorable most favorable to the plaintiff, this issue is unlikely to be user error.
14
Rather, the issue appeared to arise with fee collection. This is a duty typically attributed
15
to the clerk of court; however, the CM/ECF system uses a third party known as “pay.gov,” to
16
handle fee collection. According to plaintiff, there was a failure of CMF/ECF to “reflect a
17
18 connection to pay.gov,” resulting in a “waiting state [] that lasted, on several occasions for 5
19 minutes or more, and did not appear to resolv[e].” (ECF No. 33 at 5). On its face, this is a technical
20
failure rendering the clerk’s office “inaccessible.”
21
The court acknowledges that plaintiff has only received oral confirmation from pay.gov
22
that no payments were made during this period. However, defendants present no evidence to the
23
24 contrary. See Manuel v. Barr, 755 Fed. App’x 694, 695 (9th Cir. 2019) (applying FRAP
25 26(a)(3)(A) extension where government present any evidence to counter plaintiff’s claims that
26
technical difficulties were a result of CM/ECF malfunction rather than user error).
27
28 1 Local Rule IC 3-1 also provides that “a filer whose filing is made untimely because of a technical failure may seek
appropriate relief from the court.”
1 Because there was a technical failure on the final day of filing, the deadline was extended
2
to the next “accessible day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)(3).
3
That would be December 1, 2023—the day that plaintiff filed his complaint. Barring a valid
4
defense, plaintiff timely filed his initial complaint.
5
6
7 B. Rule 11
8
Defendants argue that, even if the clerk’s office was “inaccessible” under FRCP 6(a)(3),
9
10 the complaint was not timely filed because the filer did not sign it. (ECF. No. at 5).
11 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(a) requires, among other things, the signature of the
12 attorney of record. “The court must strike an unsigned paper unless the omission is promptly
13
correct after being called to the attorney’s or other party’s attention.” Id.
Under this rule, the court 14 has discretion to strike a pleading even if it is promptly corrected; conversely, it may accept such 15 16 a pleading.Id.
17 Further, Local Rule IC 2-1(i) provides a backstop to the pleading requirement: “The filing
18 of a document through the use of an authorized filer’s login and password constitutes the
19
‘signature’ of that attorney or party for purposes of Fed. R. Civ. P. 11.” It is true that the court
20
generally requires a notice of corrected image when a pleading lacks a signature or e-signature.
21
22 Nonetheless, under Local Rule IC 2-1(i), it may consider the original pleading timely filed.
23 This court already determined that the plaintiff promptly corrected the signature error.
24 (ECF. No. 31 at 4). That determination stands. Furthermore, as indicated in the Local Rules, the
25
filing of a document in CM/ECF through an authorized user’s login is also sufficient to satisfy the
26
Rule 11 signature requirement.
27
28
1 IV. CONCLUSION
2
The plaintiff’s initial complaint, ECF No. 1, was timely filed and in compliance with FRCP
3
4 11(a).
5 Accordingly,
6 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that plaintiff’s motion to alter
7
or amend (ECF No. 33) be, and the same hereby, is GRANTED.
8
9
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this court’s order dismissing the case in ECF No. 31 is
10
11 VACATED.
12 IT IS ALSO ORDERED that this case be referred to the magistrate for entry of a new
13 discovery plan and scheduling order in accordance with this order.
14
DATED August 21, 2025.
15
16
______________________________________________
17 UNITED STATES DISTICT JUDGE
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28