Opinion
No. CIV S-03-05744 ALA HC.
August 13, 2007
ORDER
On January 8, 2007, petitioner filed a motion asking that the court reconsider its April 14, 2005 order denying petitioner's request for an evidentiary hearing.
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.
Petitioner does not present newly discovered evidence. Furthermore, the court finds that, after a de novo review of this case, the April 14, 2005 order denying the evidentiary hearing is neither manifestly unjust nor clearly erroneous. Finally, there has been no intervening change in controlling law.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's January 8, 2007, motion for reconsideration is denied.