Opinion
2:20-cv-01837-KJM-DMC
06-21-2021
James Smith, Plaintiff, v. Shasta County, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
In January 2021, the court dismissed this action without prejudice, closing the case. See Not. of Voluntary Dismissal, ECF No. 9; Minute Order, ECF No. 12. Shortly thereafter, plaintiff moved to reopen the case, ECF No. 13, and the court denied his motion, ECF No. 15. Now plaintiff, acting without counsel, moves for reconsideration of that previous order. Mot. Reconsideration, ECF No. 16. Plaintiff appears to raise the same arguments as in his motion to reopen. See generally id. He argues his lack of consent or knowledge for the dismissal of this action. See id. ¶ 1. He also appears to raise his need to amend the original complaint. Id. ¶ 2.
A court may relieve a party from an order under Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for “mistake, inadvertence, fraud, or excusable neglect” or for “any other reason that justifies relief, ” Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(1), (b)(6). Here, plaintiff does not claim new or different facts or circumstances exist that did not exist previously or explain why the facts or circumstances were not shown at the time of the prior motion. See E.D. Cal. R. 230(j)(3)-(4). “[A] motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.” 389 Orange St. Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999). Plaintiffs motion is denied. No further filings will be considered in this closed action.
This order resolves ECF No. 16.