(PC) Johnson v. Warden

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 | Brandon R. Johnson, No. 2:23-cv-0908 KJM JDP (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. Warden, et al., 1S Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Brandon Johnson, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a response to this 18 | court’s order adopting in part the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations. See Resp., 19 | ECF No. 35; Prior Order (May 23, 2024), ECF No. 34. The court construes this response as a 20 | motion for reconsideration. 21 Generally, reconsideration is appropriate if there has been an intervening change in 22 | controlling law, new evidence has become available, or it is necessary to correct clear error or 23 | prevent manifest injustice. Cachil Dehe Band of Wintun Indians of Colusa Indian Cmty. v. 24 | California, 649 F. Supp. 2d 1063, 1069 (E.D. Cal. 2009) (citing Sch. Dist. No. 1J Multnomah 25 | County, Oregon v. ACandsS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir.1993)). Here, plaintiff does not 26 | argue there has been a change in controlling law or present any newly discovered evidence. See 27 | generally Resp. Nor does plaintiff identify any clear error or other unusual circumstance 28 | justifying reconsideration. See generally id. Instead, plaintiff reasserts the facts of his case and

1 | claims. See generally id. But “[a] party seeking reconsideration must show more than a 2 | disagreement with the [c]ourt’s decision, and recapitulation of that which was already considered 3 | by the [cJourt in rendering its decision.” United States v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F. Supp. 2d 4 | 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001) (citations and quotations omitted). Furthermore, the court reiterates 5 | that its prior decision referred this matter back to the assigned magistrate judge to consider 6 | whether plaintiff sufficiently stated: (1) a § 1983 claim for ratification of an unconstitutional 7 | action; (2) a state law claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress against defendant 8 | French; and (3) a claim against defendants Luca, Reimche, and Brown for failure to intervene. 9 | See Prior Order (May 23, 2024) at 2. Accordingly, to the extent plaintiff seeks reconsideration, 10 | such a request is denied. 11 This order resolves ECF No. 35. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 DATED: August 22, 2024. 14 15 CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28