Davis v. Sacramento County Jail et al

Filing 31

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 1/3/12 denying 27 Motion for Reconsideration. (Dillon, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

TERRENCE L. DAVIS,

11

Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15
16

No. CIV S-11-1027 CKD P

vs.
SAC. CO. JAIL, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER
/

Plaintiff has filed a motion for reconsideration of the court’s November 21, 2011

17

screening order. A court may reconsider a ruling under either Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

18

59(e) or 60(b). See Sch. Dist. Number. 1J, Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255,

19

1262 (9th Cir. 1993). “Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with

20

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

21

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

22

Plaintiff fails to point to anything suggesting reconsideration of the November 21,

23

2011 screening order is warranted. Plaintiff’s motion is vague and contains pages of extraneous

24

and confusing material. Plaintiff is cautioned that if he continues to file documents similar in

25

content to this, the court will impose page limitations on the documents plaintiff may file, limit

26

the number of documents plaintiff may file, or impose other sanctions.

1
2
3

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s December 23, 2011
motion for reconsideration is denied.
Dated: January 3, 2012

4

_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

5
6
7
1/mp

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

davi1027.mfr