Opinion
No. 2:10cv3247 CKD P
04-17-2013
AARON STRIBLING, Plaintiff, v. BORTOLEMEDI, Respondent.
ORDER
On April 11, 2013, plaintiff filed a motion asking that this court reconsider its April 1, 2013 order denying plaintiff's motion for the appointment of counsel. A 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 plaintiff's motion for reconsideration and finds that nothing warrants reconsideration of the court's decision to deny plaintiff's motion for the appointment of counsel.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's April 11, 2013 motion for reconsideration (Dkt. No. 75) is denied.
________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE