George v. Diaz

Opinion

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 JOSEPH ANTHONY GEORGE, Case No. 20-cv-03244-SI 7 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 8 v. RECONSIDERATION 9 RALPH DIAZ, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 18 10 Defendants. 11 On August 24, 2020, this action was dismissed and plaintiff's second requests for a 12 || temporary restraining order and appointment of counsel were denied. Plaintiff now moves under 13 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) for reconsideration of that order. Reconsideration under Rule 14 || 60(b) “is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) 15 |} committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening 16 || change in controlling law.” School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 2 17 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). Plaintiff first argues that the court erred by failing to rule on his second request Z, 18 || for appointment of counsel. Docket No. 18 at 1. He is wrong. The court denied plaintiff's second 19 || request for a TRO and second request for appointment of counsel “because this action is being 20 || dismissed and for the reasons stated at pages 6-10 in the order of dismissal with leave to amend.” 21 || Docket No. 16 at 6. Plaintiff's motion otherwise expresses disagreement with the court’s review of 22 || his filings but does not show his entitlement to reconsideration of the order. He has not shown 23 || newly discovered evidence, clear error or manifest injustice, or an intervening change in the law. 24 || Accordingly, plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is DENIED. Docket No. 18. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 || Dated: December 4, 2020 Site WU tee 27 □ 28 SUSAN ILLSTON United States District Judge