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