Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-00248/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-00248-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RONNIE CHEROKEE BROWN,

Plaintiff,

v.

E.F. CASTRILLO, et al.

Defendants.

No. 2:19-cv-0248 MCE CKD P

ORDER

Plaintiff, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a motion asking that the court 

reconsider its February 6, 2020 order dismissing this case. 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 

have been dismissed and there has not been a change in the law. Furthermore, the court finds 

that, after a de novo review of this case, the order of dismissal is not manifestly unjust nor clearly 

erroneous.

/////

Case 2:19-cv-00248-MCE-CKD Document 28 Filed 03/10/20 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (ECF 

No. 27) is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 10, 2020

Case 2:19-cv-00248-MCE-CKD Document 28 Filed 03/10/20 Page 2 of 2