(PS) Hedrington v. County of Solano

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 | Orlonzo Hedrington, No. 2:21-cv-00414-KJM-DB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. County of Solano et al., 1S Defendants. 16 17 In December 2021, this court adopted the magistrate judge’s findings and 18 | recommendations. Prev. Order (Dec. 15, 2021), ECF No. 41. The court granted summary 19 | judgment as to defendants David Grant Medical Center and the United States of America and 20 | remanded the remaining action to Solano County Superior Court. /d. at 2. Mr. Hedrington now 21 | brings three motions for reconsideration. ECF Nos. 44, 45, 48.1 Defendants have opposed 22 | reconsideration. ECF No. 46. 23 While a court may relieve a party from an order under Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of 24 | Civil Procedure for “mistake, inadvertence, fraud, or excusable neglect” or for “any other reason 25 | that justifies relief,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1), (b)(6), plaintiff does not claim new or different facts 26 | or circumstances exist that did not exist previously or why the facts or circumstances were not

' ECF Nos. 44 and 45 appear to be identical, and ECF No. 48 requests a status on reconsideration, now addressed in this order.

1 | shown at the time of the prior order, see E.D. Cal. R. 2309)(3)H(4). “[A] motion for 2 | reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district 3 | court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an 4 | intervening change in the controlling law.” 389 Orange St. Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 5 | (9th Cir. 1999). The court denies the plaintiff's requests for reconsideration (ECF Nos. 44, 6 | 45, 48). 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 DATED: July 13, 2022. [ (] 9 ( ti / { q_/ CHIEF NT] ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE