Opinion
2:22-cv-01499 WBS KJN
02-15-2023
KATE ADAMS, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, a political subdivision of the state of California; SHERIFF SCOTT JONES in his individual and official capacity as Sheriff of the County of Sacramento, and DOES 1-10, Defendants.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL RECONSIDERATION
WILLIAM B. SHUBB, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Before the court is plaintiff's motion for partial reconsideration (Docket No. 19) of the court's Order of January 11, 2023, granting defendants' motion to dismiss (Docket No. 16). Specifically, plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the dismissal of the claims for violation of the First Amendment and conspiracy to violate the First Amendment (Claims 2 and 3). (See Mot. for Recons. at 1-2.)
This court's orders on dispositive motions are not intended to serve merely as tentative rulings. A motion for reconsideration of such an order is an “extraordinary remedy” that should be used “sparingly in the interests of finality and the conservation of judicial resources.” Kona Enters. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is no more than a rehash of arguments that were either made or could have been made at the time of the hearing on the original motion. Plaintiff has not presented any newly discovered evidence, shown clear error or manifest injustice, or pointed to an intervening change in controlling law that would justify reconsideration. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Mutnomah County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for reconsideration (Docket No. 19) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.