Mosley v. Broyles

Filing 18

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 5/23/13 ORDERING that Plaintiffs motion for reconsideration 16 is DENIED; and Plaintiffs motion to amend 17 is DENIED. (Dillon, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

DERRICK MOSLEY,

11
12
13
14
15
16

Plaintiff,

No. 2:12-cv-2681 CKD P

Defendant.

ORDER

vs.
BROYLES,

/
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, commenced this action with the filing

17

of a complaint on October 30, 2012. (ECF No. 1.) On December 10, 2012, he consented to this

18

court’s jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Local Rule 302. (ECF No. 6.) Plaintiff’s

19

original complaint was dismissed and he was granted leave to file an amended complaint. (ECF

20

No. 9.) On April 23, 2013, the undersigned dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice due

21

to plaintiff’s failure to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 14.)

22

On May 14, 2013, plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the judgment of

23

dismissal. (ECF No. 16.) A district court may reconsider a ruling under either Federal Rule of

24

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

25

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

26

presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was
1

1

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

2

Neither factor (1) nor (3) applies in this instance. Furthermore, the court finds

3

that, after a de novo review of this case, its order of dismissal is neither manifestly unjust nor

4

clearly erroneous. Thus plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration will be denied.

5

Also on May 14, 2013, plaintiff filed a motion to amend the complaint. (ECF No.

6

17.) As this case has been closed, this motion will be denied as well.

7

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

8

1. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 16) is denied; and

9

2. Plaintiff’s motion to amend (ECF No. 17) is denied.

10

Dated: May 23, 2013

11

_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

12
13
14
15
2

16

mosl2681.850cons

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2