Smith v. Montgomery et al

Filing 17

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 5/26/2015 DENYING petitioner's 14 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

RAYSHAWN DONTAY SMITH,

12

Petitioner,

13
14

No. 2:14-cv-2468 CKD P

v.

ORDER

W. L. MONTGOMERY, et al.,

15

Respondents.

16
17
Before the court is petitioner’s May 4, 2015 motion to alter or amend the judgment

18
19

entered on April 16, 2015, denying petitioner’s request to stay this action pursuant to Rhines v.

20

Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005). (ECF No. 14.) A district court1 may reconsider a ruling under

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

Id. at 1263.

26

/////

27
28

1

(See ECF No. 6.)
1

1
2
3

Here, the court has reviewed petitioner’s motion and exhibits and determined that none of
these three conditions apply.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for reconsideration

4

(ECF No. 14) is denied.

5

Dated: May 26, 2015

_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

6
7
8
9
10

2 / smit2468.R60

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2