(PC) Dial v. Matevousion ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SHAUNDELLE DIAL, No. 1:18-cv-00679-DAD-JDP (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 14 ANDRE MATEVOUSION, et al., (Doc. No. 32) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Shaundelle Dial is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 18 this civil rights action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of 19 Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge 20 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On July 3, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, 22 recommending dismissal of this case due to plaintiff’s failures to prosecute and comply with court 23 orders. (Doc. No. 25.) On January 14, 2020, the court adopted those findings and 24 recommendations and dismissed the action. (Doc. No. 30.) Plaintiff now moves for 25 reconsideration of judgment and for the appointment of a lawyer. (Doc. No. 32.) 26 “A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual 27 circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed 28 clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law,” and it “may not be used to 1 | raise arguments or present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been 2 | raised earlier in the litigation.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 3 | F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotations marks and citations omitted) (emphasis in 4 | original). 5 In his pending motion for reconsideration, plaintiff supplies a number of conclusory 6 | justifications for his failure to prosecute this action and to comply with court orders, but fails to 7 | present the court with any evidence in support of his assertions in this regard. (Doc. No. 32 at 1- 8 | 2.) Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration also does not address the defects in his complaint that 9 | were identified in the magistrate judge’s screening order and which serve as the underlying 10 | reason for the court’s order dismissal of this case. (See Doc. No. 25 at 1.) Thus, there is no basis 11 | for the court to reconsider its earlier order. 12 Regarding plaintiffs request for a copy of the docket, plaintiff may obtain a copy of the 13 | docket in this case by contacting the Clerk of the Court and paying the applicable copy fee. 14 Accordingly, plaintiff's motion for reconsideration and request for the appointment of pro 15 | bono counsel (Doc. No. 32) is denied. 16 | IT IS SO ORDERED. me □ | Dated: _-Mareh 9, 2020 Yel A Low 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28