Patterson v. People of the State of California

Filing 16

ORDER signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 5/19/2015 DENYING 15 Motion to Vacate. (Zignago, K.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

BRYAN DAMON PATTERSON,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

No. 2:14-cv-2349 MCE CKD P

v.

ORDER

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA,

16

Defendants.

17
On May 7, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Vacate. ECF No. 15. Plaintiff’s Motion

18
19

requests that the Court reconsider its April 16, 2015 Order (ECF No. 13), which closed this

20

action. A district court may reconsider a ruling under either Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

21

59(e) or 60(b). See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th

22

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

23

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

24

if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” Id. at 1263.

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///

1

1

Plaintiff does not present newly discovered evidence or suggest that there was an

2

intervening change in controlling law. Furthermore, after conducting a de novo review of the

3

case, the Court finds that the April 16, 2014 Order is neither manifestly unjust nor clearly

4

erroneous.

5

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s May 7, 2015 Motion to Vacate (ECF No. 15) is DENIED.

6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7

Dated: May 19, 2015

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

2