(PS) Hedrington v. County of Solano

Opinion

Orlonzo Hedrington, No. 2:21-cv-00414-KJM-DB Plaintiff, ORDER v. County of Solano et al., 1S Defendants. In December 2021, this court adopted the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations. Prev. Order (Dec. 15, 2021), ECF No. 41. The court granted summary judgment as to defendants David Grant Medical Center and the United States of America and remanded the remaining action to Solano County Superior Court. /d. at 2. Mr. Hedrington now brings three motions for reconsideration. ECF Nos. 44, 45, 48.1 Defendants have opposed reconsideration. ECF No. 46. While a court may relieve a party from an order under Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for “mistake, inadvertence, fraud, or excusable neglect” or for “any other reason that justifies relief,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1), (b)(6), plaintiff does not claim new or different facts 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.

shown at the time of the prior order, see E.D. Cal. R. 2309)(3)H(4). “[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.” 389 Orange St. Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999). The court denies the plaintiff's requests for reconsideration (ECF Nos. 44, 45, 48). DATED: July 13, 2022. [ (] ( ti / { q_/ CHIEF NT] ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE