Anderson v. Unknown

Filing 19

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 6/29/2017 DENYING plaintiff's 18 motion for reconsideration. (Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

TROY ANDERSON,

10

Plaintiff,

11
12

No. 2:16-cv-2852 CKD P

v.

ORDER

SCOTT KERNAN, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
Plaintiff, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a motion asking that the court

15
16

reconsider its June 14, 2017 order dismissing this case. Plaintiff has consented to having all

17

matters in this action before a United States Magistrate Judge. See 28 U.S.C. 636(c).
A court may reconsider a ruling under either Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) or

18
19

60(b). See Sch. Dist. Number. 1J, Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th

20

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

21

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

22

if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” Id. at 1263.
Plaintiff does not present newly discovered evidence suggesting this matter should not

23
24

have been dismissed.1 Furthermore, the court finds that, after a de novo review, the court did not

25

commit clear error in dismissing this case, dismissal is not manifestly unjust, and the law has not

26
27
28

1

Plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed because he “struck out” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and
failed to pay the required filing fee when his application proceed in forma pauperis was denied.
(See, ECF Nos. 11 and 16.)
1

1
2

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

3

No. 18) is denied.

4

Dated: June 29, 2017

_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

5
6
7
8
9
10

1
ande2852.mfr

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2