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
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?