Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00623/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00623-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Robert W. Fox
Respondent
Toney Martinez
Petitioner

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

TONEY MARTINEZ,

Petitioner,

v.

ROBERT W. FOX,

Respondent.

No. 2:16-cv-0623 CKD P

ORDER

Petitioner, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a motion asking that the court 

reconsider its April 19, 2016 order dismissing this case. Petitioner has consented to have all 

matters in this action before a United States Magistrate Judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). 

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.

Petitioner does not present newly discovered evidence suggesting this matter should not 

be dismissed and there has not been a change in the law. Also, the court finds that, after a de 

novo review of this case, the court did not commit clear error in dismissing this case and the 

decision to dismiss is not manifestly unjust.

Case 2:16-cv-00623-CKD Document 11 Filed 05/13/16 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

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

(ECF No. 10) is denied.

Dated: May 13, 2016

1

mart0623.mfr

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:16-cv-00623-CKD Document 11 Filed 05/13/16 Page 2 of 2