Adams v. Easley et al

Filing 160

ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 7/9/12 denying 150 Motion for Reconsideration. Plaintiff may not file any further reconsideration motions in the district court. (Matson, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

Tyrone Adams,

10
11

Plaintiff,
v.

12

Charles Easley, et al.,

13

Defendants.
________________________________

14

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:11-cv-0826-GEB-CKD
ORDER

15

Plaintiff, appearing pro se, moves under Federal Rule of Civil

16

Procedure 60 for reconsideration of the order dismissing his second

17

amended complaint without leave to amend and for relief from the

18

judgment entered against him following the dismissal order. (ECF No.

19

150.) “A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, . . . unless

20

the . . . court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed

21

clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling

22

law.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d

23

873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). Plaintiff’s motion for

24

reconsideration fails to satisfy this standard and is therefore denied;

25

the hearing currently scheduled for July 16, 2012 is vacated.

26

Further, Plaintiff has previously filed a notice of appeal

27

with the Ninth Circuit of the dismissal order and judgment. (ECF No.

28

131.) “As a general rule, the filing of a notice of appeal divests a

1

1

district court of jurisdiction over those aspects of the case involved

2

in the appeal.” Stein v. Wood, 127 F.3d 1187, 1189 (9th Cir. 1997).

3

Therefore, Plaintiff may not file any further reconsideration motions in

4

the district court.

5

Dated:

July 9, 2012

6
7
8

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.
Senior United States District Judge

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2