(PC) Gallegos v. Bruce

District Court, E.D. California·Decided September 13, 2024·No. 2:23-cv-02964·Unknown

Opinion

BENJAMIN ROBERT GALLEGOS, No. 2:23-cv-2964 DJC CKD P Plaintiff, v. ORDER GLADDEN BRUCE, et al., Defendants. Plaintiff, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed what the court construes as a motion for reconsideration of the May 3, 2024, order dismissing plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend. A ruling may be reconsidered 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. There has been no change in the law, dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend is not unjust, clear error was not committed, and no new evidence suggests that dismissal with leave to amend is not appropriate. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration will be denied. ///// ] Plaintiff has also filed a motion for preliminary injunctive relief. As plaintiff already knows, the court cannot grant preliminary injunctive relief if there is no complaint before the court for injunctive relief. ECF Nos. 11 & 16. Therefore, the motion will be denied without prejudice to plaintiff resubmitting a motion for preliminary injunctive relief with an amended complaint in which plaintiff presents a claim for injunctive relief. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiffs motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 17) is denied. 2. Plaintiff is granted thirty days within which to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff should refer to the court’s May 3, 2024, order as to the contents of his amended complaint. Failure to file an amended complaint within 30 days will result in a recommendation that his action be dismissed. 3. Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunctive relief (ECF No. 18) is denied without prejudice as described herein. Dated: September 13, 2024 / aa / a Ly a 1s CAROLYN K DELANEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 4 gall2964 mfr >

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

(PC) Gallegos v. Bruce, (E.D. Cal. 2024).

(PC) Gallegos v. Bruce ((PC) Gallegos v. Bruce) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.