From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Baker v. McCowan

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Jul 30, 2021
2:15-cv-0248 TLN AC P (E.D. Cal. Jul. 30, 2021)

Opinion

2:15-cv-0248 TLN AC P

07-30-2021

TIMOTHY RAY BAKER, Plaintiff, v. J. MACOMBER, et al., Defendants.


ORDER

ALLISON CLAIRE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff has filed a motion for his request for appointment of counsel to be reviewed de novo, ECF No. 173, which appears to seek reconsideration by the undersigned of the July 7, 2021 Order denying appointment of counsel.

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, or what other grounds exist for the motion; and . . . why the facts or circumstances were not shown at the time of the prior motion.” L.R. 230(j)(3)-(4). Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration merely repeats the same arguments that were raised in his motion for appointment of counsel, which have already been considered by the court.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs motion for reconsideration, ECF No. 173, is DENIED.


Summaries of

Baker v. McCowan

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Jul 30, 2021
2:15-cv-0248 TLN AC P (E.D. Cal. Jul. 30, 2021)
Case details for

Baker v. McCowan

Case Details

Full title:TIMOTHY RAY BAKER, Plaintiff, v. J. MACOMBER, et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Jul 30, 2021

Citations

2:15-cv-0248 TLN AC P (E.D. Cal. Jul. 30, 2021)