(PC) Smith v. Diaz

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LARRY SMITH, No. 2:20-cv-1004 CKD P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 RALPH DIAZ, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a California prisoner proceeding pro se with an action for violation of civil 18 rights against employees of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Both 19 parties have consented to have all matters in this action before a United States Magistrate Judge. 20 See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). 21 Plaintiff has filed a motion asking that the court reconsider dismissal of certain defendants 22 dismissed pursuant to the screening process required under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). A district 23 court may reconsider an interlocutory ruling under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). See 24 Sch. Dist. Number. 1J, Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). 25 Generally speaking and applicable here, reconsideration is appropriate if clear error is committed, 26 there appears to be manifest injustice, or if there is a change in the law. Id. at 1263. A motion for 27 reconsideration must be brought within a reasonable time. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1). 28 ///// ] The last order related to screening was entered on October 10, 2023, and plaintiff fails to 2 || explain or justify his delay in seeking reconsideration of that order. Further, there was no 3 || screening error, there is no manifest injustice, and the law has not changed. 4 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for reconsideration 5 || (ECF No. 116) is denied. 6 | Dated: June 5, 2025 Card ht fa □□ he CAROLYN K.DELANEY 8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 11 | 4 D smit1004.mfr 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 >