IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
December 6, 2012
STEVEN WILLIAMS, PLAINTIFF,
D. L. RUNNELS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Morrison C. England, Jr. United States District Judge
On September 17, 2012, plaintiff filed a motion asking that this court reconsider its August 22, 2012 order adopting the magistrate judge's May 23, 2012 findings and recommendations, thereby dismissing this action as to defendant Dial. (Dkt. No. 175).
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 suggesting this matter should not be dismissed. Furthermore, the court finds that, after a de novo review of this case, the August 22, 2012 order adopting the magistrate judge's May 23, 2012 findings and recommendations is neither manifestly unjust nor clearly erroneous.
In a separate filing on September 17, 2012, plaintiff asks this court to reconsider its August 22, 2012 order pursuant to Rule 60(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides for corrections based on clerical mistakes, oversights, and omissions. (Dkt. No. 176.) Relief under this rule can be granted on the court's own motion and at any time. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a). However, once an appeal has been filed and docketed, leave of the appellate court is required to correct clerical mistakes while the appeal is pending. See id. In this case, the court does not find that reconsideration of the August 22, 2012 order pursuant to Rule 60(a) is warranted, as plaintiff's motion concerns the merits of the court's ruling and not any purported clerical error.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's September 17, 2012 motions for reconsideration (Dkt. Nos. 175 and 176) are denied.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.