(PC) Davis v. Walker ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Kennard Lee Davis, No. 2:10-cv-02139-KJM-DB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. James Walker, et al., 1S Defendants. 16 17 Following the Ninth Court’s mandate to consider plaintiff Kennard Lee Davis’s motions 18 | to reopen this case and reassess his competency to proceed, see USCA Mandate, ECF No. 336; 19 | USCA Memorandum, ECF No. 335, this court issued an order referring the case to Magistrate 20 | Judge Deborah Barnes for further proceedings as appropriate, see Min. Order (Nov. 10, 2022), 21 | ECF No. 348. Davis filed “objections” to this order, see ECF No. 353, which the court construes 22 | asa motion to reconsider its decision to refer the case to Judge Barnes. 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. 230G)(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. 353. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 DATED: December 8, 2022. [\ (] 6 l ti / { q_/ CHIEF NT] ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 45