(PC) Brown v. Castrillo ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RONNIE CHEROKEE BROWN, No. 2:19-cv-0248 MCE CKD P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 E.F. CASTRILLO, et al. 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a motion asking that the court 18 reconsider its February 6, 2020 order dismissing this case. A district court may reconsider a 19 ruling under either Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) or 60(b). See Sch. Dist. Number. 1J, 20 Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). “Reconsideration is 21 appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed 22 clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in 23 controlling law.” Id. at 1263. 24 Plaintiff does not present newly discovered evidence suggesting this matter should not 25 have been dismissed and there has not been a change in the law. Furthermore, the court finds 26 that, after a de novo review of this case, the order of dismissal is not manifestly unjust nor clearly 27 erroneous. 28 ///// 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for reconsideration (ECF 2 | No. 27) is denied. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 | Dated: March 10, 2020 5 □ 6 MORRISON C. he UNITED STATES DISTRI 4 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 >