Filed: Jan. 09, 2015
Latest Update: Jan. 09, 2015
Summary: ORDER ROBERT C. JONES, District Judge. On July 31, 2014, the Court denied Plaintiff's motions for preliminary injunctive relief concerning his prison diet. Plaintiff asked the Court to reconsider on October 31, 2014. The motion is untimely under Rule 59(e) and must therefore be considered under Rule 60(b). See, e.g., Mount Graham Red Squirrel v. Madigan, 954 F.2d 1441 , 1462-63 n.35 (9th Cir. 1992). Plaintiff identifies no inadvertence, fraud, or other basis for relief under the rule but si
Summary: ORDER ROBERT C. JONES, District Judge. On July 31, 2014, the Court denied Plaintiff's motions for preliminary injunctive relief concerning his prison diet. Plaintiff asked the Court to reconsider on October 31, 2014. The motion is untimely under Rule 59(e) and must therefore be considered under Rule 60(b). See, e.g., Mount Graham Red Squirrel v. Madigan, 954 F.2d 1441 , 1462-63 n.35 (9th Cir. 1992). Plaintiff identifies no inadvertence, fraud, or other basis for relief under the rule but sim..
More
ORDER
ROBERT C. JONES, District Judge.
On July 31, 2014, the Court denied Plaintiff's motions for preliminary injunctive relief concerning his prison diet. Plaintiff asked the Court to reconsider on October 31, 2014. The motion is untimely under Rule 59(e) and must therefore be considered under Rule 60(b). See, e.g., Mount Graham Red Squirrel v. Madigan, 954 F.2d 1441, 1462-63 n.35 (9th Cir. 1992). Plaintiff identifies no inadvertence, fraud, or other basis for relief under the rule but simply reargues his motion.
CONCLUSION
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Reconsider (ECF No. 47) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
