(PC) Archer v. Nisanci

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: January 2, 2024
• Docket: 2:23-cv-01469
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOHN PETER ARCHER, No. 2:23-cv-1469 WBS KJN P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 DIDEM NISANCI, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with this civil rights action. On 18 November 22, 2023, the court dismissed this action and judgment was entered. (ECF Nos. 19, 19 20.) Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the November 22, 2023 20 order dismissing this action. (ECF No. 21.) For the reasons stated herein, plaintiff’s motion for 21 reconsideration is denied. 22 A motion for reconsideration may be brought under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) 23 or 60(b). Samuels v. Lizarraga, 2021 WL 662272, at *1 (S.D. Cal Feb. 19, 2021). A motion is 24 treated as a motion to alter or amend judgment under Rule 59(e) if it is filed within twenty-eight 25 days of entry of judgment or the ruling; otherwise, it is treated as a Rule 60(b) motion for relief 26 from a judgment or order. Am. Ironworks & Erectors, Inc. v. N. Am. Construction Corp., 248 27 F.3d 892, 898-99 (9th Cir. 2001) (finding that a motion for reconsideration is treated as a motion 28 under Rule 59(e) if it is timely filed under that rule and as a motion under Rule 60(b) otherwise). 1 Here, the order referenced was filed on November 22, 2023, and the pending motion was 2 | filed twenty-two days later on December 14, 2023. (ECF Nos. 19, 21). Accordingly, the court 3 | finds that plaintiff's motion is brought under Rule 59(e). See Am. Ironworks & Erectors, Inc., 4 | 248 F.3d at 898-99. 5 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), district courts have the power to 6 | reconsider a previous ruling or entry of judgment. Under Rule 59(e), it is appropriate to alter or 7 | amend a previous ruling if “(1) the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) 8 || the district court committed clear error or made an initial decision that was manifestly unjust, or 9 | (3) there is an intervening change in controlling law.” United Nat. Ins. Co. v. Spectrum 10 | Worldwide, Inc., 555 F.3d 772, 780 (9th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). 11 On September 6, 2023, the magistrate judge recommended that this action be dismissed on 12 || the grounds that plaintiff's first amended complaint failed to state a potentially colorable claim 13 | relief. (ECF No. 17.) The magistrate judge also recommended that plaintiff be denied leave 14 | to amend because plaintiff could not cure the pleading defects. id.) On November 22, 2023, this 15 | court adopted the September 6, 2023 findings and recommendations. (ECF No. 19.) 16 In the pending motion for reconsideration, plaintiff seeks leave to file a second amended 17 | complaint. (ECF No. 21.) Having reviewed the pending motion, this court finds that plaintiff 18 | does not identify any basis under Rule 59(e) upon which this court should reconsider its order 19 || dismissing this action without leave to amend. This court will therefore deny plaintiffs motion 20 | for reconsideration of the court’s November 22 2023 order. 21 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs motion for reconsideration (ECF 22 | No. 21) of the November 22, 2023 order dismissing this action is denied. 23 | Dated: January 1, 2024 td □ ak. Ld. bE 24 WILLIAMB.SHUBB | UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

26 27 | Arch1469.rec 28