(PC) Miller v. Najera

Opinion

STEVEN R. MILLER, Case No. 1:19-cv-01077-AWI-BAM (PC) Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION v. (Doc. No. 17) NAJERA, et al., Defendants. Plaintiff Steven R. Miller is federal prisoner who proceeded pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). On December 7, 2020, the undersigned dismissed this action, with prejudice, due to Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Doc. No. 15. Judgment was entered the same date. Doc. No. 16. Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, which was filed on January 12, 2021. Doc. No. 17. “[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,” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotations marks and citations omitted), and “[a] party seeking reconsideration must show more than a disagreement with the Court’s decision, and recapitulation” of that which was already considered by the Court in rendering its decision, United States v. Westlands Water District, 134 F. Supp. 2d } 1111, 1131 (ED. Cal. 2001) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Additionally, pursuant to this Court’s Local Rules, when filing a motion for reconsideration of an order, a party must show “what new or different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion.” Eastern District of California Local Rule 230(j). Plaintiff's motion fails to present “new or different facts or circumstances . . . which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion,” as required by Local Rule 230()). The Court’s order adopting the findings and recommendation and dismissing this action was issued following a de novo review of the entire case, and Plaintiff has failed to set forth any additional grounds that the Court did not consider that would entitle him to relief from the Court’s judgment. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration (Doc. No. 17) is DENIED. This action remains closed. Dated: _January 20, 2021 —. 7 □ Z Cb Led — SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE