Opinion
2:19-cv-00142-APG-VCF
01-11-2022
DONALD ROTSIN BARREN, Plaintiff v. JAMES DZURENDA, et al., Defendants
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
[ECF NO. 56]
ANDREW P. GORDON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff Donald Barren moves for reconsideration of my prior order dismissing various defendants because of Barren's failure to timely serve them.
Reconsideration may be appropriate “if the district court (1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” Sch. Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). A district court may also reconsider its decision if “other, highly unusual, circumstances” warrant it. Id. As the movant, Barren “must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior decision.” United States v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F.Supp.2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001). A motion for reconsideration “must not repeat arguments already presented unless (and only to the extent) necessary to explain controlling, intervening law or to argue new facts.” LR 59-1(b); Backlund v. Barnhart, 778 F.2d 1386, 1388 (9th Cir. 1985).
Barren has not presented sufficient evidence or reasons for me to reconsider my prior order.
I THEREFORE ORDER that plaintiff Donald Barren's motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 56) is denied.