George v. Diaz

Opinion

1 2 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. 26 Dated: December 4, 2020 Site WU tee 27 □ United States District Judge