Allen v. Anderson

Filing 35

ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 2/26/2015 DENYING plaintiff's 32 Motion for Reinstatement of Case. (Marciel, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

TONY ALLEN,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:13-cv-1458 JAM CKD P

v.

ORDER

ANDERSON, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
On December 15, 2014, plaintiff filed a document the court construes as a motion for

17
18

reconsideration of this court’s June 30, 2014 dismissal of this action for plaintiff’s failure to

19

oppose defendants’ motion to dismiss. A district court may reconsider a ruling under either

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

1263.
Plaintiff does not present newly discovered evidence suggesting this matter should not

25
26

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

27

June 30, 2014 order dismissing this case is neither manifestly unjust nor clearly erroneous.

28

/////
1

1
2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s December 15, 2014 motion for
reconsideration (ECF No. 32) is denied.

3
4
5

DATED: February 26, 2015
/s/ John A. Mendez______________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

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