Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01056/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01056-2/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

KM

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

Daniel Dean Sheets, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

C. A. Terhune, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 1-08-1056-SRB

ORDER

Plaintiff Daniel Dean Sheets, who is confined in the United States PenitentiaryMarion, in Marion, Illinois, has filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 (Doc. #1). This case was reassigned to the undersigned judge on November 25, 2008.

On October 14, 2009, the Court dismissed the Complaint and this action (Doc. #8). On

February 22, 2010, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Reconsideration.

Motions for reconsideration should be granted only in rare circumstances. Defenders

of Wildlife v. Browner, 909 F. Supp. 1342, 1351 (D. Ariz. 1995). “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, Multnomah County v. ACandS,

Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). Such motions should not be used for the purpose of

asking a court “‘to rethink what the court had already thought through — rightly or

wrongly.’” Defenders of Wildlife, 909 F. Supp. at 1351 (quoting Above the Belt, Inc. v. Mel

Case 1:08-cv-01056-SRB Document 11 Filed 03/30/10 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 -

Bohannon Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D.Va. 1983)).

The Court dismissed the Complaint as barred by the statute of limitations. Plaintiff

does not offer facts or arguments in his Motion for Reconsideration that demonstrate the

Court erred in finding his claims barred by the statute of limitations. The Court will therefore

deny the Motion for Reconsideration.

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s February 22, 2010 Motion for Reconsideration

(Doc. #10) is denied.

DATED this 30th day of March, 2010.

Case 1:08-cv-01056-SRB Document 11 Filed 03/30/10 Page 2 of 2