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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?