Nichols v. Plumas County Correctional Facility

Filing 21

ORDER denying 16 Motion to Alter or Amendment Judgement signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 11/23/15. (Kaminski, H)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

GERALD EDMUND NICHOLS,

12
13
14
15
16

No. 2:15-cv-1299 MCE CKD P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

PLUMAS COUNTY CORRECTIONAL
FACILITY,
Defendant.

17
18
19

Plaintiff, a county jail inmate proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42

20

U.S.C. § 1983. In an Order dated October 5, 2015, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s First Amended

21

Complaint with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. ECF No.

22

14. Plaintiff has filed a Motion to Alter or Amendment Judgement, which asks that the Court

23

reconsider the October 5, 2015 Order. ECF No. 16.

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28
1

1

if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” Id. at 1263. Here, the Court’s October 5,

2

2015 Order was not clearly erroneous nor manifestly unjust, and none of the other factors apply.

3
4
5
6

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Alter or Amendment Judgement (ECF No. 16) is
DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 23, 2015

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