Downs v. California Attorney General

Filing 54

ORDER signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 3/17/14 ORDERING that plaintiffs February 28, 2014 motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 52 ) is denied.(Dillon, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

GREGROY DOWNS,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:12-cv-3057 MCE CKD P

v.

ORDER

CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL,

15

Defendant.

16
On February 28, 2014, plaintiff filed a document the court construes as a motion for

17
18

reconsideration of this court’s February 19, 2014 order dismissing this action. A district court

19

may reconsider a ruling under either Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) or 60(b). See Sch.

20

Dist. Number. 1J, Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993).

21

“Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with newly discovered

22

evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is

23

an intervening change in controlling law.” Id. at 1263.

24

Plaintiff does not present newly discovered evidence suggesting this matter should not be

25

dismissed. Furthermore, the court finds that, after a de novo review of this case, the February 19,

26

2014 order dismissing this case is neither manifestly unjust nor clearly erroneous.

27

/////

28

/////
1

1
2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s February 28, 2014 motion for
reconsideration (ECF No. 52) is denied.

3
4

Dated: March 17, 2014

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2