ORDER

JAMES C. MAHAN, District Judge.

Presently before the court is plaintiff Joseph A. Rodriguez's motion requesting that this court reconsider its order dismissing the complaint. (Doc. #33). Defendants have not filed a response.

The court dismissed plaintiff's amended complaint on March 19, 2012, pursuant to defendants' motion to dismiss. On March 22, 2012, the plaintiff filed a motion requesting that the court not dismiss the complaint. As the complaint was already dismissed, this court, interpreting plaintiff's papers broadly, construed the motion as a motion to reconsider. The court denied the motion.

Plaintiff now seeks reconsideration again, stating that he did not know how to properly stylize an opposition to the motion to dismiss, and by the time he learned, the deadline to oppose had passed.1 The court is not persuaded that such a circumstance satisfies the standard for reconsideration. See School Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (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.").

The complaint was dismissed over three years after plaintiff first filed suit. He could have, and should have, learned how to properly file papers within this time. The plaintiff's dilatory tactics in this lawsuit have burdened the court's docket. In over three years of this case's pendency on the court's docket, very little has been done to faithfully prosecute the action. Under these facts, the court does not find that its initial decision to dismiss or its denial of the first motion to reconsider "was manifestly unjust." See id.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that plaintiff's motion to reconsider (doc. #33) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.