(PC) Smith v. Diaz

Opinion

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