Opinion
ORDER
CAROLYN K. DELANEY, Magistrate Judge.
On July 29, 2013, petitioner filed a document the court construes as a motion for reconsideration of this court's dismissal of this action for failure to exhaust state court remedies. A district court may reconsider a ruling 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.
The court has reviewed the document filed by petitioner on July 29, 2013. There is still nothing suggesting petitioner has exhausted state court remedies with respect to the two claims identified in his May 8, 2013 amended petition for writ of habeas corpus.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner's July 29, 2013 motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 15) is denied.