Shavers v. Clark, et al
Filing
55
ORDER denying 54 Motion for Reconsideration signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 4/12/13. (Kaminski, H)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
JESSE LEE SHAVERS, JR.,
11
Petitioner,
12
vs.
13
No. 2:10-cv-1001 JAM CKD P
D. CLARK, et al.,
14
Respondents.
15
ORDER
/
16
On April 1, 2013, plaintiff filed a motion asking this court to reconsider its March
17
6, 2012 order adopting the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations of December 28,
18
2011, thereby dismissing this action for plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies
19
before filing suit.
20
A district court may reconsider a ruling under either Federal Rule of Civil
21
Procedure 59(e) or 60(b). See Sch. Dist. Number. 1J, Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc., 5
22
F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). “Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is
23
presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was
24
manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” Id. at 1263.
25
/////
26
/////
1
Plaintiff does not present newly discovered evidence suggesting this action should
2
not have been dismissed, nor does he demonstrate an intervening change in the law.
3
Furthermore, the court finds that the March 6, 2012 order adopting the December 28, 2011
4
findings and recommendations was neither manifestly unjust nor clearly erroneous.
5
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s April 1, 2013 motion for
6
reconsideration (Dkt. No. 54) is DENIED.
7
DATED:
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
April 12, 2013
/s/ John A. Mendez
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?