Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00400/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00400-2/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.

R. MOTT, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:16-cv-0400 CKD P

ORDER

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. On April 5, 2016, the court screened the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

1915A(a) and dismissed it with leave to amend. (ECF No. 6.) Before the court is plaintiff’s 

motion for reconsideration of the screening order. (ECF No. 9.) 

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 

 

1

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

this action. (ECF No. 5.)

Case 2:16-cv-00400-MCE-CKD Document 11 Filed 05/05/16 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

decision to dismiss the complaint with leave to amend was not clearly erroneous nor manifestly 

unjust, and none of the other factors apply.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 9) is denied; 

2. Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time (ECF No. 10) is granted, such that the motion 

for reconsideration is considered timely; and

3. Plaintiff is granted 30 days from the date of this order to file an amended complaint as 

set forth in the April 5, 2016 order. Failure to file an amended complaint will result in dismissal 

of this action.

Dated: May 5, 2016

2 / stri0400.R60

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:16-cv-00400-MCE-CKD Document 11 Filed 05/05/16 Page 2 of 2