Hearn v. Warden

Opinion

I UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 || William HEARN, Case No.: 22-cv-0255-AGS-DDL 4 Plantitt.| ORDER ON OBJECTION TO 5 || V. ORDER (ECF 85) 6 || RJD WARDEN, et al., 7 Defendants. 8 Plaintiff William Hearn objects once again to the magistrate judge’s denial of his 9 || motions to appoint counsel and to file a third amended complaint. (Compare ECF 72 with 10 || ECF 85.) This Court previously overruled those same objections. (See ECF 76.) Because 11 || Hearn offers no new rationale, the renewed objections are denied for the same reasons the 12 || Court previously provided. (See id.) Even if the Court were to recharacterize Hearn’s filing 13 a motion for reconsideration, that motion would fail. “[A] motion for reconsideration 14 |/should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is 15 ||presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an 16 |/intervening change in the controlling law.” 389 Orange St. Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 17 ||656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999). Because Hearn “merely reiterate[s] [his] disagreement with the 18 || order” and does not provide a proper basis for reconsideration, the motion is denied. See 19 || Stephens v. County of Hawaii Police Dep’t, 584 F. App’x 506, 507 (9th Cir. 2014). 20 ||Dated: July 12, 2024

Hon. Andrew G. Schopler United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28