(PS) Van den Heuvel v. Cissna

Opinion

Jean Mare Van den Heuvel, No. 2:21-cv-01342-KJM-CKD Plaintiff, ORDER v. Teri Cissna, et al., 1S Defendants. In July 2022, this court adopted the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations, dismissing plaintiff Jean Marc Van den Heuvel’s action against three Sheriffs officers. Prior Order (Oct. 27, 2022), ECF No. 15. In October 2022, Van den Heuvel filed a document including a vague statement about alleged wrongful acts by officers. See Not., ECF No. 44. The following month he filed a second document, including further vague statements about alleged wrongful acts by officers. See Letter, ECF No. 45. This court liberally construes the filings as motions to reconsider the prior order. 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 facts or circumstances exist or otherwise offer a reason justifying relief, see E.D. Cal. R. 230G)(3), (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 plaintiffs requests for reconsideration. This order resolves ECF Nos. 44, 45. DATED: December 5, 2022. [\ (] ( ti / { q_/ CHIEF NT] ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE