(PC) Elias v. Kinross

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ----oo0oo---- 11 12 KEIRON M. ELIAS, No. 2:17-cv-2106 WBS DB 13 Plaintiff, 14 v. ORDER 15 J. KINROSS, et al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 ----oo0oo---- 19 The court previously granted in part defendants’ motion 20 for summary judgment. (Docket No. 73.) Plaintiff has filed a 21 document entitled “Objections to Courts [sic] Granting of Summary 22 Judgment” (Docket No. 74), which the court will construe as a 23 motion to reconsider under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). 24 Plaintiff presents no new facts or circumstances which would 25 warrant reconsideration, but instead repeats arguments already 26 raised on summary judgment. See Jackson v. Walker, 2:06-cv-2023 27 WBS GGH, 2009 WL 3584946 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 28, 2009) (an 28 unsuccessful party may not use a motion to reconsider “to rehash nnn □□□ nn nnn EE IRI OE ES ESE IEE II ND

1 arguments previously presented” or to present contentions which 2 might have been raised prior to the challenged judgment) 3 (citations omitted). Accordingly, plaintiff’s request for 4 reconsideration (Docket No. 74) is DENIED. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED he ble 7H. (LA. 6 Dated: November 17, 2022 WILLIAMB.SHUBB .}.}©}©§=©—©)—.—” 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28