DeJesus

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RAYMOND ALFORD BRADFORD, No. 2:21-cv-1411 KJM CKD P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 S. DEJESUS, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff has filed a motion asking the court to reconsider the May 23, 2022 order 18 dismissing this case because he did not pay the filing fee. See Mot., ECF No. 23. He argues he 19 should be permitted to proceed in forma pauperis and not be required to pay the filing fee. 20 Id. at 3. 21 A district court may reconsider a ruling under either Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) 22 or 60(b). See Sch. Dist. Number. 1J, Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th 23 Cir. 1993). “Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with newly 24 discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or 25 (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” Id. at 1263. 26 Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis was denied on October 20, 2021, because 27 …