Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-06051/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-06051-1/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 Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SEAVON PIERCE,

Plaintiff,

v.

SAN FRANCISCO EXAMINER, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-06051-EMC 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION

Docket No. 9

Plaintiff has filed a motion for reconsideration of the order of dismissal and judgment filed 

on May 16, 2016. A party may move to alter or amend a judgment in a motion filed no later than 

28 days after entry of judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). A motion for reconsideration under 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) “„should not be granted, absent highly unusual 

circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed 

clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the law.‟” McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 

1253, 1255 (9th Cir. 1999) (citation omitted) (en banc). Plaintiff has not shown newly discovered 

evidence, clear error by the Court, or an intervening change in the law. The order of dismissal 

correctly determined that the complaint did not state a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

against the three newspapers Plaintiff had sued. His motion for reconsideration therefore is 

DENIED. (Docket No. 9.) 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 21, 2016

______________________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-06051-EMC Document 10 Filed 06/21/16 Page 1 of 1