Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01299/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01299-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Gerald Edmund Nichols
Plaintiff
Plumas County Correctional Facility
Defendant

Document Text:

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

GERALD EDMUND NICHOLS,

Plaintiff,

v.

PLUMAS COUNTY CORRECTIONAL 

FACILITY,

Defendant.

No. 2:15-cv-1299 MCE CKD P

ORDER

Plaintiff, a county jail inmate proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. In an Order dated October 5, 2015, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s First Amended 

Complaint with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. ECF No. 

14. Plaintiff has filed a Motion to Alter or Amendment Judgement, which asks that the Court 

reconsider the October 5, 2015 Order. ECF No. 16. 

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)

Case 2:15-cv-01299-MCE-CKD Document 21 Filed 11/25/15 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

if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” Id. at 1263. Here, the Court’s October 5, 

2015 Order was not clearly erroneous nor manifestly unjust, and none of the other factors apply.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Alter or Amendment Judgement (ECF No. 16) is 

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 23, 2015

Case 2:15-cv-01299-MCE-CKD Document 21 Filed 11/25/15 Page 2 of 2