Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02349/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02349-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Bryan Damon Patterson
Plaintiff
People of the State of California
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

BRYAN DAMON PATTERSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF 

CALIFORNIA,

Defendants.

No. 2:14-cv-2349 MCE CKD P

ORDER

On May 7, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Vacate. ECF No. 15. Plaintiff’s Motion 

requests that the Court reconsider its April 16, 2015 Order (ECF No. 13), which closed this 

action. A district court may reconsider a ruling under either Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

59(e) or 60(b). See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty. 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 2:14-cv-02349-MCE-CKD Document 16 Filed 05/19/15 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

Plaintiff does not present newly discovered evidence or suggest that there was an 

intervening change in controlling law. Furthermore, after conducting a de novo review of the

case, the Court finds that the April 16, 2014 Order is neither manifestly unjust nor clearly 

erroneous. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s May 7, 2015 Motion to Vacate (ECF No. 15) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: May 19, 2015

Case 2:14-cv-02349-MCE-CKD Document 16 Filed 05/19/15 Page 2 of 2