Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00802/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00802-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jermel Larry Bray
Petitioner
People of the State of California
Respondent

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 

JERMEL LARRY BRAY, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF 

CALIFORNIA, 

Respondent. 

No. 2:16-cv-802 JAM CKD P 

ORDER 

 Before the court is petitioner’s October 17, 2016 motion to alter or amend the judgment 

entered on August 30, 2016, dismissing this action without prejudice. 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. 

 Here, having reviewed petitioner’s motion and the record of this action, the court has 

determined that none of these three conditions apply. 

//// 

//// 

//// 

Case 2:16-cv-00802-JAM-CKD Document 10 Filed 01/06/17 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

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for reconsideration 

(ECF No. 9) is denied. 

DATED: January 5, 2017 

 /s/ John A. Mendez________________________ 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 

 

Case 2:16-cv-00802-JAM-CKD Document 10 Filed 01/06/17 Page 2 of 2