Harrison v. Linde, et. al.

Filing 103

ORDER signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 5/1/15 ORDERING that plaintiff's motion for reconsideration, 98 is granted. The order filed 3/31/15 is amended at page 1:22-25, to reflect that plaintiff was granted a fourteen day extension of time to file objections on 3/5/15 92 and that his 3/19/15 objections were timely filed. (Becknal, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CARL F. HARRISON,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:13-cv-1510 KJM CKD P

v.

ORDER

LINDE, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17
18

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42

19

U.S.C. § 1983. Judgment was entered for defendants on March 31, 2015. (ECF Nos. 96, 97.) On

20

April 20, 2015, plaintiff filed objections to the March 31, 2015 order (ECF No. 98), which this

21

court construes as a motion for reconsideration of the order.1 (See ECF No. 101, holding

22

appellate proceedings in abeyance until resolution of “the pending April 20, 2015 motion.”).

23

A district court may reconsider a ruling under either Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e)

24

or 60(b). See Sch. Dist. Number. 1J, Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th

25

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

26

1

27

It is not clear whether plaintiff challenges the judgment itself or merely the characterization of
his objections as “untimely.” If the latter, plaintiff’s point is moot, as the order states that his
objections were considered. (ECF No. 96 at 1.)

28
1

1

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

2

if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” Id. at 1263. Plaintiff correctly notes that his

3

objections to the findings and recommendations were due two weeks from an order filed March 5,

4

2015 and therefore were timely filed on March 19, 2015. As noted in the order, the objections

5

were considered by the court in conducting its de novo review of the record. (ECF No. 96 at 2.)

6

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration,

7

(ECF No. 98) is granted. The order filed March 31, 2015 is amended at page 1:22-25, to reflect

8

that plaintiff was granted a fourteen day extension of time to file objections on March 5, 2015

9

(ECF No. 92) and that his March 19, 2015 objections were timely filed.

10

DATED: May 1, 2015.

11
12
13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2