Hearn v. Warden

Opinion

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

Hon. Andrew G. Schopler United States District Judge