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)

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