Hall v. Jordan et al.

Filing 16

ORDER signed by District Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 125/5/2017 DENYING 15 Motion for Reconsideration. (Washington, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TERRELL D. HALL, 12 13 14 15 No. 2:15-cv-2474 GEB CKD P Plaintiff, v. ORDER G. JORDAN, et al., Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a motion asking that the court 18 reconsider its March 24, 2016 order dismissing this case for failing to pay the filing fee or to file 19 an in forma pauperis application. A district court may reconsider a ruling under either Federal 20 Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) or 60(b). See Sch. Dist. Number. 1J, Multnomah County v. 21 ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). “Reconsideration is appropriate if the district 22 court (1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial 23 decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” Id. at 24 1263. Courts construing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) have noted that a motion to 25 reconsider is not a vehicle permitting the unsuccessful party to “rehash” arguments previously 26 presented, or to present “contentions which might have been raised prior to the challenged 27 judgment.” Costello v. United States, 765 F. Supp. 1003, 1009 (C.D. Cal. 1991); see also 28 F.D.I.C. v. Meyer, 781 F.2d 1260, 1268 (7th Cir. 1986); Keyes v. National R.R. Passenger Corp., 1 1 766 F. Supp. 277, 280 (E.D. Pa. 1991). These holdings “reflect [ ] district courts' concerns for 2 preserving dwindling resources and promoting judicial efficiency.” Costello, 765 F.Supp. at 3 1009. 4 Plaintiff fails to present newly discovered evidence suggesting this matter should not have 5 been dismissed. The court was aware of plaintiff’s pro se status at the time he filed his civil 6 rights complaint. Furthermore, the dismissal was without prejudice to filing a new civil rights 7 lawsuit. The court finds that, after a de novo review of this case, no clear error was committed in 8 dismissing plaintiff’s complaint. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is 9 10 denied. 11 Dated: December 5, 2017 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?