Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00773/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00773-4/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 

PATRICIA A. McCOLM, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

TRINITY COUNTY, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:14-cv-0773 KJM CKD P 

ORDER 

 

 Plaintiff, a former state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has requested that this court reconsider its February 9, 2015 order 

dismissing this action and closing the case. (ECF No. 25.) 

 This action was dismissed on February 9, 2015, due to plaintiff’s failure to file an 

amended complaint. (See ECF Nos. 21, 23.) Plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed with leave to 

amend by order filed May 29, 2014. (ECF No. 10.) Plaintiff received extensions of time, to and 

including December 23, 2014, to file an amended complaint. (See ECF Nos. 14, 18.) She did not 

file an amended complaint by that deadline and her request for reconsideration is not 

accompanied by a proposed amended complaint. 

///// 

Case 2:14-cv-00773-KJM-CKD Document 26 Filed 04/28/15 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

 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. The February 9, 2015 

decision dismissing this action was not clearly erroneous nor manifestly unjust, and none of the 

other factors applies. 

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

reconsideration (ECF No. 25) is denied. 

DATED: April 28, 2015. 

Case 2:14-cv-00773-KJM-CKD Document 26 Filed 04/28/15 Page 2 of 2