Witkin v. M. et al.

Filing 23

ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 3/6/17 ORDERING that plaintiff's motion for reconsideration 22 is DENIED. (Becknal, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MICHAEL AARON WITKIN,

12

No. 2:15-cv-2493 KJM CKD P

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

KEVIN M., et al.,

15

ORDER

Defendants.

16
17
18

This pro se prisoner action was dismissed for failure to state a claim on September 27,

19

2016. (ECF No. 20.) Before the court is plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the judgment.

20

(ECF No. 22.)

21

A district court may reconsider a ruling under either Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

22

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

23

(9th Cir. 1993). “Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with newly

24

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

25

if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” Id. at 1263. Here, the court’s decision to

26

dismiss this action was not clearly erroneous nor manifestly unjust, and none of the other factors

27

apply.

28
1

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (ECF

2

No. 22) is denied.

3

DATED: March 6, 2017

4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2