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
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?