Cunningham
Cunningham v. Kramer
Opinion
Lead Opinion
Seng, J.
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO CORRECT DOCKET
(ECF No. 10)
AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS
Plaintiff is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 .
Plaintiffs complaint was dismissed for failure to state a claim, but he was given leave to amend. (ECF No. 9.) On December 21, 2015, Plaintiff filed a document purporting to be a first amended complaint. (ECF No. 10.) However, the purported complaint consisted of a form complaint referring the Court to Plaintiffs original complaint. It contained no other allegations and instead presented Plaintiffs objections to the Court’s screening order. Accordingly, the Court will construe Plaintiffs submission as a motion for reconsideration. The Clerk’s Office will be directed to correct the docket to reflect that ECF No. 10 is a motion for reconsideration, rather than an amended complaint.
I. LEGAL STANDARD
“A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening…