(PC) Thomas v. Fry

E.D. California

(PC) Thomas v. Fry

DecidedApril 20, 2021

Docket2:19-cv-01041

StatusUnknown

This text of (PC) Thomas v. Fry ((PC) Thomas v. Fry) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

(PC) Thomas v. Fry, (E.D. Cal. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Otis Michael Thomas, No. 2:19-cv-1041 KJM CKD P 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. J.C. Fry, et al., 1S Defendants. 16 17 The court construes the response at ECF No. 34 as a request to reconsider the order 18 | adopting the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations. See City of Los Angeles v. Santa 19 | Monica BayKeeper, 254 F.3d 882, 886 (9th Cir. 2001); Cachil Dehe Band of Wintun Indians of 20 | Colusa Indian Cmty. v. California, 649 F. Supp. 2d 1063, 1069 (E.D. Cal. 2009). 21 | Reconsideration is appropriate if there has been an intervening change in controlling law, new 22 | evidence has become available, or it is necessary to correct clear error or prevent manifest 23 | injustice. Cachil Dehe Band, 649 F. Supp. 2d at 1069. The court has reviewed Mr. Thomas’s 24 | filing and concludes that he has not identified any relevant change in the law, new evidence, clear 25 | error, or manifest injustice. Reconsideration is denied. 26 IT IS SO ORDERED. 27 DATED: April 20, 2021. | / □ 28 CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Otis Michael Thomas, No. 2:19-cv-1041 KJM CKD P 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. J.C. Fry, et al., 1S Defendants. 16 17 The court construes the response at ECF No. 34 as a request to reconsider the order 18 | adopting the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations. See City of Los Angeles v. Santa 19 | Monica BayKeeper, 254 F.3d 882, 886 (9th Cir. 2001); Cachil Dehe Band of Wintun Indians of 20 | Colusa Indian Cmty. v. California, 649 F. Supp. 2d 1063, 1069 (E.D. Cal. 2009). 21 | Reconsideration is appropriate if there has been an intervening change in controlling law, new 22 | evidence has become available, or it is necessary to correct clear error or prevent manifest 23 | injustice. Cachil Dehe Band, 649 F. Supp. 2d at 1069. The court has reviewed Mr. Thomas’s 24 | filing and concludes that he has not identified any relevant change in the law, new evidence, clear 25 | error, or manifest injustice. Reconsideration is denied. 26 IT IS SO ORDERED. 27 DATED: April 20, 2021. | / □ 28 CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

(PC) Thomas v. Fry, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pc-thomas-v-fry-caed-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack