Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Hall v. Alameida

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


August 7, 2008

GREGORY ANDREW HALL, PLAINTIFF,
v.
EDWARD S. ALAMEIDA, ET AL., DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: John A. Mendez United States District Judge

ORDER

On September 29, 2006, this court entered judgment after ruling on defendants' motion for summary judgment. On February 12, 2007, plaintiff filed a request for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b).

A district court may reconsider a ruling under either Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) or 60(b). See Sch. Dist. Number. 1J, Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). "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." Id. at 1263.

Plaintiff does not present newly discovered evidence. Furthermore, the court finds that, after a de novo review of this case, the September 29, 2006 order adopting the June 27, 2006 findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge and providing an independent analysis of the claimed denial of exercise is neither manifestly unjust nor clearly erroneous.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's February 12, 2007 motion to vacate judgment is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20080807

© 1992-2008 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.