(PS) Van den Heuvel v. Cissna ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Jean Mare Van den Heuvel, No. 2:21-cv-01342-KJM-CKD 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. 14 Teri Cissna, et al., 1S Defendants. 16 17 In July 2022, this court adopted the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations, 18 | dismissing plaintiff Jean Marc Van den Heuvel’s action against three Sheriffs officers. Prior 19 | Order (Oct. 27, 2022), ECF No. 15. In October 2022, Van den Heuvel filed a document including 20 | a vague statement about alleged wrongful acts by officers. See Not., ECF No. 44. The following 21 | month he filed a second document, including further vague statements about alleged wrongful 22 | acts by officers. See Letter, ECF No. 45. This court liberally construes the filings as motions to 23 | reconsider the prior order. 24 While a court may relieve a party from an order under Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of 25 | Civil Procedure for “mistake, inadvertence, fraud, or excusable neglect” or for “any other reason 26 | that justifies relief,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1), (b)(6), plaintiff does not claim new facts or 27 | circumstances exist or otherwise offer a reason justifying relief, see E.D. Cal. R. 230G)(3), (4). 28 | “[A] motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, 1 | unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if 2 | there is an intervening change in the controlling law.” 389 Orange St. Partners v. Arnold, 3 | 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999). The court denies plaintiffs requests for reconsideration. 4 This order resolves ECF Nos. 44, 45. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 DATED: December 5, 2022. [\ (] 7 ( ti / { q_/ CHIEF NT] ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 45