(PC) Eleson v. Kernan ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ERIC RICHARD ELESON, No. 2:18-cv-2834 MCE CKD P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 SCOTT KERNAN, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a motion asking that the court 18 reconsider its August 20, 2019, order dismissing this case. ECF No. 19. A district court may 19 reconsider a ruling under either Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) or 60(b). See Sch. Dist. 20 Number. 1J, Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). 21 “Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with newly discovered 22 evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is 23 an intervening change in 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, the dismissal of this action was neither manifestly unjust nor the 27 result of error. Therefore, plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration will be denied. 28 /// ] In his motion for reconsideration, plaintiff also asks that the undersigned recuse. That 2 || request will also be denied as there is no valid basis for recusal. See 28 U.S.C. § 455. 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 4 1. Plaintiffs motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 19) is DENIED; 5 2. Plaintiff's request that the undersigned recuse is DENIED; and 6 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close the case. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 || Dated: October 11, 2019 0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT TOS0e 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 >