Opinion
No. 2:06-cv-01575-MCE-KJM P.
May 1, 2008
ORDER
On October 2, 2007, plaintiff filed a motion asking that this court reconsider its September 20, 2007 order denying plaintiff's request to file a late notice of appeal.
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.
Plaintiff does not present newly discovered evidence. Furthermore, the court finds that, after a de novo review, the September 20, 2007 order is neither manifestly unjust nor clearly erroneous. Finally, there has not been a change in controlling law.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's October 2, 2007, motion for reconsideration is denied.