Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-02203/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-02203-4/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD JOSEPH CRANE, No. 2:02-cv-2203-MCE-KJM-P

Plaintiff, 

v. ORDER

D.L. RUNNELS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

On September 7, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion asking that this court reconsider its August

21, 2006 order adopting the magistrate judge’s February 24, 2006 findings and

recommendations. 

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.

/////

/////

Case 2:02-cv-02203-MCE -KJM Document 142 Filed 04/20/07 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

Plaintiff does not present newly discovered evidence. Furthermore, the court finds that,

after a de novo review of this case, the August 21, 2006 order adopting the February 24, 2005

findings and recommendations is neither manifestly unjust nor clearly erroneous. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s September 7, 2006 motion for

reconsideration is denied. 

Dated: April 20, 2007

________________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:02-cv-02203-MCE -KJM Document 142 Filed 04/20/07 Page 2 of 2