IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
April 19, 2012
ARTARLIO DABNEY, PETITIONER,
D. K. SISTO, RESPONDENT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: John A. Mendez United States District Court Judge
On December 7, 2011, plaintiff filed a motion asking that this court reconsider the November 14, 2011 order adopting the magistrate judge's September 21, 2011 findings and recommendations thereby dismissing this action.
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.
Petitioner states that the court did not consider his objections to the magistrate's September 21, 2011 findings and recommendations. Petitioner apparently did not file these objections with the court. However, in his October 31, 2011 reply to the findings and recommendations, respondent stated that petitioner's objections were served on him on October 15, 2011, and attached a copy of these objections. (Dkt. No. 21.)
Having now reviewed petitioner's objections, the court concludes that the November 14, 2011 order adopting the magistrate judge's September 21, 2011 findings and recommendations is neither manifestly unjust nor clearly erroneous. As to the other two criteria for reconsideration, petitioner has not presented new evidence, and there has been no intervening change in the controlling law.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner's December 7, 2011 motion for reconsideration is denied.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.