(PC) Hill v. Bullard ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 | Cymeyon Hill, No. 2:21-cv-02336-KJM-KJN 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. 14 Liet Bullard, et al., 1S Defendants. 16 17 In October 2022, this court adopted the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations, 18 | dismissing plaintiff Cymeyon Hill’s action against twelve prison officers. Prior Order (Oct. 27, 19 | 2022), ECF No. 15. A month later, Hill filed a document comprised of this court’s prior order, 20 | with handwritten text rejecting the court’s subject matter jurisdiction and denying consent to the 21 | proceedings. See Objections, ECF No. 17. This court liberally construes the filing as a motion to 22 | reconsider the prior order. 23 While a court may relieve a party from an order under Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of 24 | Civil Procedure for “mistake, inadvertence, fraud, or excusable neglect” or for “any other reason 25 | that justifies relief,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1), (b)(6), plaintiff does not claim new facts or 26 | circumstances exist or otherwise offer a reason justifying relief, see E.D. Cal. R. 230()(3), (4). 27 | “[A] motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, 28 | unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if 1 | there is an intervening change in the controlling law.” 389 Orange St. Partners v. Arnold, 2 | 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999). The court denies plaintiff’s request for reconsideration. 3 This order resolves ECF No. 17. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 | DATED: December 5, 2022. /\ (] 6 tied { g_/ CHIEF NT] ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 45