(PC) Thomas v. Fry ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Otis Michael Thomas, No. 2:19-cv-01041-KJM-CKD 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 Vv. 14 Kathleen Allison, et al., 1S Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Otis Michael Thomas moved for this case to proceed as a class action. ECF 18 | No. 43. The assigned magistrate judge recommended denying that motion. ECF No. 44. This 19 | court adopted that recommendation, ECF No. 47, over Thomas’s objection, ECF No. 46. Thomas 20 | now files Objections to the Findings and Recommendations, ECF No. 48. The court construes 21 | this filing as a request for reconsideration or relief from a judgment brought under either Rule 22 | 59(e) or Rule 60(b). Fuller v. M.G. Jewelry, 950 F.2d 1437, 1442 (9th Cir. 1991) (citation 23 | omitted). As Thomas filed the objections within twenty-eight days of the entry of judgment, the 24 | court considers the motion under Rule 59(e). 25 Thomas’s latest filing does not present a basis for reconsideration. “Under Rule 59(e), a 26 | motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the 27 | district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an 28 | intervening change in the controlling law.” 389 Orange St. Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 1 | (9th Cir. 1999) (citation omitted). Similarly, Local Rule 230())(3)+(4) requires that a movant 2 | seeking reconsideration identify “what new or different facts or circumstances” exist, or any other 3 | grounds, to justify reconsideration of a court's prior order. E.D. Cal. R. 230G)(3)-(4). Here, the 4 | objections are nearly identical to those Thomas filed previously, which the court considered when 5 | issuing its ruling. The only additions, including attaching the Findings and Recommendations 6 | and underlining the sections he disagrees with, do not provide grounds for reconsideration under 7 | the relevant rules. 8 The court construes the filing at ECF 48 as a request for reconsideration, and so 9 | construed, denies it. 10 This order resolves ECF No. 48. 1] IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 DATED: October 18, 2021. 13 CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 45