Bazzill 349826 v. McGrane

Opinion

WO 2 3 4 5 8 9 Ryan Eugene Bazzill, No. CV-25-08022-PCT-KML (MTM) 10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 Vv. Dennis McGrane, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 On March 18, 2025, the court ruled the complaint in this case was duplicative of a 16 || complaint plaintiff filed in CV-24-8165. (Doc. 6 at 4.) This case was dismissed on that 17 || basis. Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration, but that motion does not address the basis for the court’s dismissal. (Doc. 8.) Reconsideration is not merited. See Zimmerman v. City 19 || of Oakland, 255 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir. 2001) (discussing factors for granting a motion for 90 || reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)). Accordingly, 2 IT IS ORDERED the Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 8) is DENIED. 23 Dated this 27th day of March, 2025. 24 CU da MA 07 United States District Judge 28