Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00483/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00483-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

DAVID SAMPSON HUNTER,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. KROENLEIN, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:16-cv-0483 CKD P

ORDER

This pro se prisoner civil rights action was dismissed without prejudice on May 9, 2016. 

(ECF No. 22.) On July 25, 2016, plaintiff appealed the judgment. (ECF No. 31.) On August 1, 

2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit directed the district court to rule on 

“whether [plaintiff’s] May 18, 2016 filing is a motion listed in Federal Rule of Appellate 

Procedure 4(a)(4) and if so,” to resolve the motion. Hunter v. Kroenlein, No. 16-16329 (9th Cir., 

Aug. 1, 2016 order). 

Plaintiff’s May 18, 2016 filing, styled as a declaration rather than a motion, seeks various 

forms of relief, including compensatory and punitive damages, emergency injunctive relief, and 

reinstatement of the complaint dismissed on May 9, 2016. (ECF No. 25.) Insofar as the filing 

////

Case 2:16-cv-00483-CKD Document 39 Filed 10/14/16 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

may be construed as a motion for relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), the court 

addresses it per FRAP 4(a)(4). 

A district court1 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. Here, the court’s 

decision to dismiss this action without prejudice was not clearly erroneous nor manifestly unjust, 

and none of the other factors apply.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for relief (ECF No. 25) is 

denied.

Dated: October 14, 2016

2 / hunt0483.R60

 

1

Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of a Magistrate Judge to conduct all proceedings in this 

action. (ECF No. 11.)

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:16-cv-00483-CKD Document 39 Filed 10/14/16 Page 2 of 2