Smith v. Shasta County ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 James Smith, No. 2:20-cv-01837-KJM-DMC 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 Shasta County, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 In January 2021, the court dismissed this action without prejudice, closing the case. See 18 Not. of Voluntary Dismissal, ECF No. 9; Minute Order, ECF No. 12. Shortly thereafter, plaintiff 19 moved to reopen the case, ECF No. 13, and the court denied his motion, ECF No. 15. Now 20 plaintiff, acting without counsel, moves for reconsideration of that previous order. Mot. 21 Reconsideration, ECF No. 16. Plaintiff appears to raise the same arguments as in his motion to 22 reopen. See generally id. He argues his lack of consent or knowledge for the dismissal of this 23 action. See id. ¶ 1. He also appears to raise his need to amend the original complaint. Id. ¶ 2. 24 A court may relieve a party from an order under Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil 25 Procedure for “mistake, inadvertence, fraud, or excusable neglect” or for “any other reason that 26 justifies relief,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1), (b)(6). Here, plaintiff does not claim new or different 27 facts or circumstances exist that did not exist previously or explain why the facts or circumstances 28 were not shown at the time of the prior motion. See E.D. Cal. R. 230(j)(3)–(4). “[A] motion for 1 | reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district 2 || court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an 3 || intervening change in the controlling law.” 389 Orange St. Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 4 | (9th Cir. 1999). Plaintiff's motion is denied. No further filings will be considered in this closed 5 || action. 6 This order resolves ECF No. 16. 7 || DATED: June 21, 2021. 8 9 ( ti / ¢ q_/ 10 CHIEF NT] ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28