Hunter v. Lopez, et al.

Filing 39

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 10/14/2016 DENYING plaintiff's 25 motion for relief. (Yin, K)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVID SAMPSON HUNTER, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 No. 2:16-cv-0483 CKD P v. ORDER M. KROENLEIN, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 This pro se prisoner civil rights action was dismissed without prejudice on May 9, 2016. 19 (ECF No. 22.) On July 25, 2016, plaintiff appealed the judgment. (ECF No. 31.) On August 1, 20 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit directed the district court to rule on 21 “whether [plaintiff’s] May 18, 2016 filing is a motion listed in Federal Rule of Appellate 22 Procedure 4(a)(4) and if so,” to resolve the motion. Hunter v. Kroenlein, No. 16-16329 (9th Cir., 23 Aug. 1, 2016 order). Plaintiff’s May 18, 2016 filing, styled as a declaration rather than a motion, seeks various 24 25 forms of relief, including compensatory and punitive damages, emergency injunctive relief, and 26 reinstatement of the complaint dismissed on May 9, 2016. (ECF No. 25.) Insofar as the filing 27 //// 28 1 1 may be construed as a motion for relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), the court 2 addresses it per FRAP 4(a)(4). 3 A district court1 may reconsider a ruling under either Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 59(e) or 60(b). See Sch. Dist. Number. 1J, Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 5 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). “Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with 6 newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly 7 unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” Id. at 1263. Here, the court’s 8 decision to dismiss this action without prejudice was not clearly erroneous nor manifestly unjust, 9 and none of the other factors apply. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for relief (ECF No. 25) is 10 11 denied. 12 Dated: October 14, 2016 _____________________________________ CAROLYN K. DELANEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 2 / hunt0483.R60 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of a Magistrate Judge to conduct all proceedings in this action. (ECF No. 11.) 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?