Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-02029/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-02029-13/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MANUEL GUADALUPE SANCHEZ, 

JR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

T. VIRGA, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:10-cv-2029 CKD P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a California prisoner proceeding pro se with an action for violation of civil 

rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He has consented to have all matters in this action before a United 

States Magistrate Judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). 

On January 16, 2015, plaintiff filed a request for reconsideration of court’s October 28, 

2014 screening order. A ruling may be reconsidered 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 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 fails to point to 

anything indicating reconsideration of the court’s October 28, 2014 order is warranted under the 

law.

Case 2:10-cv-02029-JAM-CKD Document 46 Filed 01/27/15 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

In his motion, plaintiff also asks for leave to file a fifth amended complaint. However, 

plaintiff fails to assert in any meaningful respect how a fifth amended complaint would cure the 

deficiencies articulated in the court’s prior screening orders. Accordingly, this action will 

proceed on plaintiff’s fourth amended complaint. 

 Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiff’s January 16, 2015 motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 42) is denied; and

2. Plaintiff’s request for leave to amend is denied.

Dated: January 27, 2015

1/md

sanc2029.850

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:10-cv-02029-JAM-CKD Document 46 Filed 01/27/15 Page 2 of 2