Mehmood v. U.S. Marshals Service et al

Filing 48

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 2/17/2016 DENYING plaintiff's 47 motion for reconsideration. (Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

YASIR MEHMOOD,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:14-cv-2075 CKD P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

U.S. MARSHALS SERVICE, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17
18

Plaintiff, a federal pretrial detainee proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action pursuant

19

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Due to plaintiff’s failure to file a Third Amended Complaint more than four

20

months after the Second Amended Complaint was dismissed, this action was closed on December

21

30, 2015. (ECF No. 42; see ECF No. 35.)

22

Before the court is plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the judgment. (ECF No. 47.)

23

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

24

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

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

27

if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” Id. at 1263. Here, despite plaintiff’s transfer

28
1

1

during the intervening four months, the court’s decision was not clearly erroneous nor manifestly

2

unjust, and none of the other factors apply.

3

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

4

No. 47) is denied.

5

Dated: February 17, 2016

_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

6
7
8
9
10
11
12

2 / mehm2075.R60

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2