Wheeler v. Payless Towing et al

Filing 6

ORDER DISMISSING Plaintiff's 5 Motion for Reconsideration As Moot signed by Magistrate Judge Sandra M. Snyder on 1/7/2010. (Bradley, A)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 On November 17, 2009, this court granted plaintiff John Frederick Wheeler's motion to proceed in forma pauperis but dismissed his complaint with leave to amend within thirty days, to allow plaintiff to amend or supplement his complaint to state a cognizable claim (doc. 3). On December 9, 2009, plaintiff filed a motion entitled, "Request for Judicial Notice; Request for This Court Sandra M. Sn[y]der to Person[a]lly Examin[e] Plaintiff's Original and Amended Complaint Because This Court Err[]ed" (doc. 5). The motion is substantively in the nature of a motion for reconsideration of the portion of this court's November 17, 2009, order dismissing plaintiff's complaint with leave to file an amended complaint (doc. 3). In prosecuting a motion for reconsideration, a party generally sets forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior decision. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 (governing motions for reconsideration of final orders and judgments) and Local Rule 78-230(k) (governing motions for reconsideration of orders resolving motions). In his motion, plaintiff contended that the court misunderstood the allegations of his complaint and that because the complaint did allege cognizable claims, the court erred in dismissing it with leave to amend. 1 v. PAYLESS TOWING, et al., Defendants. / (doc. 5) JOHN FREDERICK WHEELER, Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AS MOOT CASE NO. 1:09-cv-01829-LJO-SMS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Nonetheless, on December 10, 2009, plaintiff filed a first amended complaint (doc. 4). Because plaintiff subsequently filed an amended complaint, his reconsideration motion is moot. Accordingly, this court hereby DISMISSES the reconsideration motion filed as document 5 in this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: icido3 January 7, 2010 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2