Filed: Nov. 24, 2015
Latest Update: Nov. 24, 2015
Summary: ORDER EILEEN S. WILLETT , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff Sherman Terrell Pruitt, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison Complex-Lewis, has filed a pro se civil rights First Amended Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 (Doc. 7). Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint (Doc. 29) was denied by Order of the Court filed August 18, 2015 (Doc. 34). Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the Court's Order in the pending Motion for Reconsideration for Leave to Amend First Amended
Summary: ORDER EILEEN S. WILLETT , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff Sherman Terrell Pruitt, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison Complex-Lewis, has filed a pro se civil rights First Amended Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 (Doc. 7). Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint (Doc. 29) was denied by Order of the Court filed August 18, 2015 (Doc. 34). Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the Court's Order in the pending Motion for Reconsideration for Leave to Amend First Amended C..
More
ORDER
EILEEN S. WILLETT, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff Sherman Terrell Pruitt, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison Complex-Lewis, has filed a pro se civil rights First Amended Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 7). Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint (Doc. 29) was denied by Order of the Court filed August 18, 2015 (Doc. 34). Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the Court's Order in the pending Motion for Reconsideration for Leave to Amend First Amended Complaint (Doc. 36). Plaintiff asserts that library hours, Plaintiff's lack of understanding of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and Plaintiff's lack of legal training support reconsideration of the Court's ruling.
Motions for reconsideration should be granted only in rare circumstances. See Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003). "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." School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). See also LRCiv 7.2(g)(1) ("The Court will ordinarily deny a motion for reconsideration of an Order absent a showing of manifest error or a showing of new facts or legal authority that could not have been brought to its attention earlier with reasonable diligence").
Here, Plaintiff has not presented any basis which warrants reconsideration of the Court's prior Order denying the request to file a second amended complaint. Plaintiff has presented no newly discovered evidence or intervening change in controlling law. The Court has committed no clear error. Plaintiff has failed to establish manifest injustice.
Plaintiff having failed to satisfy the standard for reconsideration, the Motion for Reconsideration for Leave to Amend First Amended Complaint will be denied.
CONCLUSION
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration for Leave to Amend First Amended Complaint (Doc. 26) is denied.
