Full Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 2 3 Sankona Graham, Case No. 2:26-cv-00044-CDS-MDC Order Denying Petitioner’s Motions 4 Petitioner 5 v. [ECF Nos. 14, 15, 16, 17] 6 Nevada Dept. of Corrections, et al., 7 Respondents 8 9 This closed habeas matter is before me on pro se petitioner Sankona Graham’s motion to 10 reopen, motion to consolidate cases, motion for status check, and motion for preliminary 11 injunction. ECF Nos. 14, 15, 16, 17. On initial review under the Habeas Rules, I dismissed Graham’s 12 petition as duplicative because he had already filed a petition in an earlier case that was stayed 13 pending final resolution of his state habeas petition. ECF No. 12. For the reasons discussed below, I 14 deny Graham’s motions. 15 Graham moves requests leave to reopen the proceedings, consolidate his cases, and for a 16 preliminary injunction. He fails to cite applicable legal authority to support his motions. However, 17 even if I construe the motion to reopen as a request for reconsideration to alter or amend the 18 judgment under Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,1 the new information he 19 presents does not change the defects that required dismissal of his petition. The dismissal was not 20 an error or manifestly unjust decision. 21 And in his motion for preliminary injunction, Graham asserts that prison officials are 22 using excessive force, sexually harassing him, retaliating against him, and denying due process. 23 ECF No. 17. Such allegations are those a prisoner can raise in a civil rights case, not in a closed 24 25 1 A motion seeking reconsideration should not be granted, “absent highly unusual circumstances,” unless the court (1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision 26 was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law. Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009); Sch. Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). 1||habeas case. If he seeks to pursue these claims, he must bring a new civil action by filing a $ 1983 2|}complaint. Accordingly, Graham’s motions are denied. 3 This case is closed. There can be no further filings in this closed case. If Graham wishes to 4||seek relief in this court he must file a new action, with a new case number, on the correct court- 5 [required form (when applicable) accompanied by the filing fee or a fully completed application to 6 || proceed in forma pauperis. 7 IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED: 8 1. Petitioner Sankona Graham’s motion to reopen [ECF No. 14] is denied. 9 2. Petitioner’s motion to consolidate [ECF No. 15] is denied. 10 3. Petitioner’s motion for status check [ECF No. 16] is denied as moot. 4. Petitioner's motion for preliminary injunction [EC No. 17] is denied. 12 Dated: October 7, 2026 /, / iffa—— 14 Cristina/D. ‘iva United Stdtes District Judge 15 / 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 XY