Smith v. Pearman
- Susan Illston
- 3:19-cv-03683
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
In Anthony Smith v. S Pearman, Judge Illston denied reconsideration because the motion showed no new evidence, clear error, or change in law.
Anthony Smith’s request to reconsider the earlier dismissal was denied; the opinion does not identify any further effect on S Pearman.
What happened
Anthony Smith asked the court to review and require issuance of a writ. The court treated that request as a motion asking it to reconsider its earlier dismissal order and judgment.
The court explained that reconsideration under Rule 59(e) generally requires newly discovered evidence, a clear court error, or an intervening change in the law. It found that Smith’s motion showed none of those circumstances and instead expressed disagreement with the earlier dismissal.
In Anthony Smith v. S Pearman, Judge Susan Illston denied the motion for reconsideration. The opinion does not describe the claims or reasons involved in the earlier dismissal.
The detailed version
- Smith v. Pearman · No. 3:19-cv-03683
- Susan Illston
- Nov. 5, 2019
Background
Anthony Smith filed a motion titled “motion for review: mandation [sic] of issuing the writ.” The court construed that filing as a motion for reconsideration of its earlier order of dismissal and judgment. The opinion does not explain the underlying claims or the basis for the original dismissal.
Legal standard
The court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). It stated that reconsideration under that rule generally should not be granted unless the court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or there has been an intervening change in the law.
Ruling
The court found that Smith’s motion did not show newly discovered evidence, clear error by the court, or an intervening change in the law. Instead, the court said, the motion reflected disagreement with the earlier dismissal order and judgment. The court therefore denied the motion for reconsideration.
Effect
The order addresses only the request for reconsideration. It does not provide additional details about the earlier dismissal or alter that ruling.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.