IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
January 7, 2010
JOHN FREDERICK WHEELER, PLAINTIFF,
PAYLESS TOWING, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sandra M. Snyder United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AS MOOT
On November 17, 2009, this court granted plaintiff John Frederick Wheeler's motion to proceed in forma pauperis but dismissed his complaint with leave to amend within thirty days, to allow plaintiff to amend or supplement his complaint to state a cognizable claim (doc. 3). On December 9, 2009, plaintiff filed a motion entitled, "Request for Judicial Notice; Request for This Court Sandra M. Sn[y]der to Person[a]lly Examin[e] Plaintiff's Original and Amended Complaint Because This Court Erred" (doc. 5). The motion is substantively in the nature of a motion for reconsideration of the portion of this court's November 17, 2009, order dismissing plaintiff's complaint with leave to file an amended complaint (doc. 3).
In prosecuting a motion for reconsideration, a party generally sets forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior decision. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 (governing motions for reconsideration of final orders and judgments) and Local Rule 78-230(k) (governing motions for reconsideration of orders resolving motions). In his motion, plaintiff contended that the court misunderstood the allegations of his complaint and that because the complaint did allege cognizable claims, the court erred in dismissing it with leave to amend.
Nonetheless, on December 10, 2009, plaintiff filed a first amended complaint (doc. 4).
Because plaintiff subsequently filed an amended complaint, his reconsideration motion is moot. Accordingly, this court hereby DISMISSES the reconsideration motion filed as document 5 in this action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.