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