The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 RONNIE CHEROKEE BROWN, No. 2:19-cv-0248 MCE CKD P
12 Plaintiff,
13 v. ORDER
14 E.F. CASTRILLO, et al.
15 Defendants.
16
17 Plaintiff, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a motion asking that the court
18 reconsider its February 6, 2020 order dismissing this case. A district court may reconsider a
19 ruling under either Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) or 60(b). See Sch. Dist. Number. 1J,
20 Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). “Reconsideration is
21 appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed
22 clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in
23 controlling law.” Id. at 1263.
24 Plaintiff does not present newly discovered evidence suggesting this matter should not
25 have been dismissed and there has not been a change in the law. Furthermore, the court finds
26 that, after a de novo review of this case, the order of dismissal is not manifestly unjust nor clearly
27 erroneous.
28 /////
1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for reconsideration (ECF
2 | No. 27) is denied.
3 IT IS SO ORDERED.
4 | Dated: March 10, 2020
5 □
6 MORRISON C. he
UNITED STATES DISTRI
4
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 >