Davis v. Walker et al

Filing 277

ORDER signed by Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 12/8/22 DENYING 276 plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration. (Kastilahn, A)

Case 2:08-cv-00593-KJM-DB Document 277 Filed 12/08/22 Page 1 of 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

Kennard Lee Davis,

12
13
14

No. 2:08-cv-00593-KJM-DB
Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.
James Walker, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

Following the Ninth Court’s mandate to consider plaintiff Kennard Lee Davis’s motions

18

to reopen this case and reassess his competency to proceed, see USCA Mandate, ECF No. 262;

19

USCA Memorandum, ECF No. 261, this court issued an order referring the case to Magistrate

20

Judge Deborah Barnes for further proceedings as appropriate, see Min. Order (Oct. 6, 2022), ECF

21

No. 275. Davis moves the court to reconsider its decision to refer the case to Judge Barnes.

22

Mot., ECF No. 276.

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 facts or

26

circumstances exist or otherwise offer a reason justifying relief, see E.D. Cal. R. 230(j)(3), (4).

27

“[A] motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances,

28

unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if
1

Case 2:08-cv-00593-KJM-DB Document 277 Filed 12/08/22 Page 2 of 2
1

there is an intervening change in the controlling law.” 389 Orange St. Partners v. Arnold,

2

179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999). The court denies plaintiff’s request for reconsideration.

3

This order resolves ECF No. 276.

4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5

DATED: December 8, 2022.

6

2