IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
April 17, 2013
AARON STRIBLING, PLAINTIFF,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Carolyn K. Delaney United States Magistrate Judge
On April 11, 2013, plaintiff filed a motion asking that this court reconsider its April 1, 2013 order denying plaintiff's motion for the appointment of counsel. A 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. The court has reviewed plaintiff's motion for reconsideration and finds that nothing warrants reconsideration of the court's decision to deny plaintiff's motion for the appointment of counsel.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's April 11, 2013 motion for reconsideration (Dkt. No. 75) is denied.
© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.