King Solomon v. Tapia

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California denies Plaintiff King Solomon’s motion for reconsideration of the order striking his motion to compel discovery. The court construes the motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) and concludes that Plaintiff showed neither grounds for reconsideration nor manifest injustice.

Holdings

1. Plaintiff was not entitled to reconsideration because he did not show newly discovered evidence, clear error, or an intervening change in controlling law.
2. Plaintiff was not entitled to reconsideration on a manifest-injustice theory because he identified no direct, obvious, and observable error in the prior order.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Plaintiff established grounds under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) to reconsider the order striking his motion to compel discovery.
2. Whether denying reconsideration would result in manifest injustice.

Disposition

other