(PC) Turner v. Guibord ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANTHONY DEWAYNE LEE TURNER, No. 2:19-cv-00416-TLN-DB 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 SACRAMENTO CITY FIRE DEPT., et. al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 On August 9, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Appoint Counsel (ECF No. 41), which the 18 magistrate judge subsequently denied (ECF No. 42). On August 25, 2021, Plaintiff filed a 19 “Motion for Judicial Intervention and Motion for Reconsideration” of the magistrate judge’s 20 decision. (ECF No. 44.) This Court, upon review, found that reconsideration was not warranted 21 and affirmed the magistrate judge’s findings. (ECF No. 45.) 22 On September 20, 2021, Plaintiff filed a “Request for Judicial Intervention,” (ECF No. 23 46), and on September 22, 2021, Plaintiff filed a document titled “Request for Reconsideration” 24 (ECF No. 47). Through his motions, Plaintiff renews his request for counsel and argues that he 25 met the standard in his prior request of showing that the magistrate judge’s order was “clearly 26 erroneous.” (ECF No. 47 at 2.) 27 28 / / / 1 “Under Rule 59(e), a motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly 2 | unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, 3 | committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.” 389 Orange St. 4 | Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999). 5 Plaintiff highlights several cases to support his request for reconsideration. (See generally 6 | ECF No. 47.) These cases are unavailing and, moreover, Plaintiff fails to provide any 7 | information or new evidence that will change the outcome of the order. The Court has carefully 8 | reviewed the entire file, including Plaintiff's requests. (ECF Nos. 46, 47.) The Court finds the 9 | magistrate judge’s order as well as this Court’s prior order are supported by the record and by 10 || proper analysis. Simply put, the Rule 59(e) standard is not met here. 11 For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's Request for Judicial Intervention (ECF No. 46) and 12 | Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 47) are hereby DENIED. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 | DATE: September 29, 2021 15 {) □ /) 16 “ ! / Vk 17 Troy L. Nunley ] 18 United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28