Stephen v. Zhang et al

Filing 164

ORDER signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 12/6/12 DENYING 160 Motion to Reopen Case. (Dillon, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

JIMMIE STEPHEN,

11

Petitioner,

12

v.

13

No. 2:09-cv-01516 MCE CKD P

F. ZHANG, et al.,

14

Respondent.

15

ORDER
/

16

On September 19, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion asking that the Court reconsider

17

its March 1, 2012, order adopting the magistrate judge’s December 1, 2011, findings and

18

recommendations thereby dismissing this action.

19

A district court may reconsider a ruling under either Federal Rule of Civil

20

Procedure 59(e) or 60(b). See Sch. Dist. Number. 1J, Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc.,

21

5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). “Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is

22

presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was

23

manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” Id. at 1263.

24

Plaintiff does not present newly discovered evidence suggesting this matter should

25

not be dismissed.

26

///

1

Furthermore, the court finds that, after a de novo review of this case, the March 1, 2012, order

2

adopting the December 1, 2011, findings and recommendations is neither manifestly unjust nor

3

clearly erroneous.

4
5
6

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s September 19, 2012,
motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 160) is denied.
Dated: December 6, 2012

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

________________________________
MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE