Hamilton v. Shoopman et al

Filing 31

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 30 (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 5/3/2013)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

BERNARD LEE HAMILTON,

8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

No. C 10-3682 SI (pr)

Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION

v.
COLLEEN SHOOPMAN; et al.,
Defendants.
/

12
13

This action was dismissed because plaintiff failed to accomplish service of process on

14

defendants in more than twenty months and failed to show good cause for not having done so.

15

Plaintiff has filed a "request for reconsideration and/or to vacate order of dismissal." Docket #

16

30. Plaintiff urges in his motion that there is an alternative way for the court to attempt to

17

accomplish service of process. His argument ignores that (a) he specifically was informed that

18

he had to accomplish the service of process due to his non-pauper status, and (b) he could have

19

attempted to use a request for waiver of service but chose not to do so in the 20+ months he

20

knew of his obligation to accomplish service of process. A motion for reconsideration under

21

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) "'should not be granted, absent highly unusual

22

circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed

23

clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the law."' McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d

24

1253, 1255 (9th Cir. 1999) (citation omitted) (en banc). Plaintiff's request for reconsideration

25

is DENIED because he has not shown newly discovered evidence, clear error, or an intervening

26

change in the law. (Docket # 30.)

27
28

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 3, 2013

_______________________
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge