Miller v. Catlett et al

Filing 49

ORDER denying 33 Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Dana M. Sabraw on 5/20/10. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(lao) (jrl).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 HON. DANA M. SABRAW United States District Judge -108cv2428

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CURTIS E. MILLER, vs. T. CATLETT; A. AMAT, Defendants. This case comes before the Court on Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of this Court's February 1, 2010 Order granting in part and denying in part Defendants' motion to dismiss. Specifically, Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the Court's decision to dismiss his state law claim with prejudice. Defendants have filed an opposition to the motion, and Plaintiff has filed a reply. "Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law." School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Oregon v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). Plaintiff has not shown that any of these circumstances is present in this case. Accordingly, his motion for reconsideration is denied. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: May 20, 2010 Plaintiff, CASE NO. 08cv2428 DMS (PCL) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION [Docket No. 33]