Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00399/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00399-4/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

AARON STRIBLING,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. TOBIAS, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:16-cv-0399-MCE-EFB P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel and in forma pauperis in an action 

brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 15, 2016, the magistrate judge screened the complaint 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) and dismissed it with leave to amend. ECF No. 10. Now 

pending is plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the screening order. ECF No. 13.

“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.” School Dist. No. 1J v. AC and S, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 

1263 (9th Cir. 1993). Further, Local Rule 230(j) requires that a motion for reconsideration state 

“what new or different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not 

shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion,” and “why the facts or 

circumstances were not shown at the time of the prior motion.” E.D. Cal., Local Rule 230(j)(3)-

(4).

Case 2:16-cv-00399-MCE-EFB Document 14 Filed 07/19/16 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

Here, the magistrate judge’s screening order, which dismissed the complaint with leave to 

amend, was neither clearly erroneous nor manifestly unjust. There are no other grounds 

warranting reconsideration of the screening order. 

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

No. 13) is denied.

Dated: July 18, 2016

Case 2:16-cv-00399-MCE-EFB Document 14 Filed 07/19/16 Page 2 of 2