Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-02661/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-02661-17/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

JOSE AVINA,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-02-2661 FCD KJM P

vs.

J.C. MEDELLIN, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

On April 19, 2007, plaintiff filed a motion asking that this court reconsider its

March 30, 2007 order adopting the magistrate judge’s March 2, 2007 findings and

recommendations thereby dismissing this action. 

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-02661-FCD-CKD Document 115 Filed 04/26/07 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 any new material evidence. Furthermore, the court

finds that, after a de novo review of this case, the March 30, 2007 order adopting the March 2,

2007 findings and recommendations is neither manifestly unjust nor clearly erroneous. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s April 19, 2007 motion

for reconsideration is denied. 

DATED: April 25, 2007.

Case 2:02-cv-02661-FCD-CKD Document 115 Filed 04/26/07 Page 2 of 2