(PC) Harper v. Powell

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DANIEL HARPER, No. 2:24-cv-1343-TLN-AC 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 B. POWELL, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 18 (ECF No. 18), which the Court construes as a Motion to Reconsider the Court’s June 21, 2024 19 Order denying his Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 17). 20 “A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual 21 circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed 22 clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, 23 Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal citations and 24 quotations omitted). Further, local Rule 230(j) requires that a motion for reconsideration state 25 “what new or different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not 26 shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion; and . . . why the facts 27 or circumstances were not shown at the time of the prior motion.” E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(j)(3)–(4). 28 /// 1 In the instant case, the Court finds Plaintiff's motion does not present any new or different 2 | facts or circumstances that would demonstrate that he was in imminent danger of serious physical 3 | injury at the time he filed the complaint. 4 Accordingly, the Court hereby DENIES Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration. (ECF No. 5 | 18.) 6 | Date: August 15, 2024 7 Ay /) San □□ Take 10 Troy L. Nunley> . } United States District Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28