(PC) Black v. Attorney General of California ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SIVA D. BLACK, No. 2:21-cv-01094-TLN-JDP 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CALIFORNIA, 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 On March 29, 2022, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were 19 served on the parties and contained notice that any objections to findings and recommendations 20 were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 67.) Plaintiff Siva D. Black (“Plaintiff”) filed 21 objections to the findings and recommendations on April 12, 2022. (ECF No. 70.) On June 2, 22 2022, this Court adopted the findings and recommendations. (ECF No. 80.) Concurrently, the 23 Court: (1) dismissed the Third Amended Complaint with prejudice and without leave to amend 24 for failure to state a claim; and (2) denied Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay, Motion for Federal 25 Investigation, Motion for Court Order, Motion for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, and Motion 26 for Preliminary Injunction. (Id.) Subsequently, the Court entered judgment on June 8, 2022, and 27 closed the case. (ECF No. 82.) Shortly after, Plaintiff filed a request for reconsideration. (ECF 28 1 | No. 84.) 2 “Under Rule 59(e), a motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly 3 | unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, 4 | committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.” 389 Orange St. 5 || Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999). 6 Plaintiff alleges he would like to “start over” but does not provide any new evidence, 7 | point to clear error, or allege a change of controlling law. (ECF No. 84.) The Court has carefully 8 | reviewed the entire file, including Plaintiff's requests. (d.) The Court finds the magistrate 9 || judge’s order as well as this Court’s prior order are supported by the record and by proper 10 | analysis. Simply put, the Rule 59(e) standard is not met here. For the foregoing reasons, 11 | Plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 84) is hereby DENIED. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 | DATED: July 8, 2022 14 ry /) 1S “ \/ fb 16 — WN Troy L. Nunley } 17 United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28