Opinion
2:21-cv-00637-TLN-EFB P
04-05-2022
RAYMOND ALFORD BRADFORD, Plaintiff, v. P. SAFY, Defendant.
ORDER
Troy L. Nunley, United States District Judge
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel and in forma pauperis in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He seeks reconsideration of the March 1, 2022 order (ECF No. 21) dismissing his complaint with leave to amend and denying his requests for counsel and a guardian ad litem. (ECF No. 22.)
Although the motion is captioned as objections to the March 1, 2022 Findings and Recommendations to deny Plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief, the text of the motion also seeks reconsideration of the magistrate judge's order, issued concurrently with the findings and recommendation, dismissing Plaintiff's complaint with leave to amend and denying Plaintiff's requests for counsel and a guardian ad litem. (See ECF No. 22.)
Local Rule 230(j) requires that a motion for reconsideration state “what new or different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, ” and “why the facts or circumstances were not shown at the time of the prior motion.” E.D. Cal., Local Rule 230(j)(3)-(4). Plaintiff's motion must be denied because it does not describe any new or different facts, only Plaintiffs disagreement with the magistrate judge's order.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that plaintiffs motion for reconsideration of the March 1, 2022 order (ECF No. 22) is DENIED.