Opinion
CV 09-15-H-DWM-RKS.
September 8, 2010
ORDER
On August 10, 2010, the Court denied Tremblay's objection to Judge Strong's Order denying Tremblay's motion for appointment of counsel. Tremblay has since filed an "Appeal an [sic] Appeal to be Appointed Counsel." (dkt #36.) The Court construes this to be a motion to reconsider.
Tremblay's motion to reconsider will be denied for two reasons. First, he does not meet the standards of Local Rule 7.3. That is, he has not filed a motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration.
Secondly, Tremblay has not shown clear error or manifest injustice, presented newly discovered evidence or an intervening change in controlling law that would support amending the Court's August 10, 2010 Order. Zimmerman v. City of Oakland, 255 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir. 2001). Nor has he shown "mistake, inadvertence, surprise . . . excusable neglect," or other justification for relief under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(1) or (6).
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Tremblay's Motion for Reconsideration (dkt #36) is DENIED.
Dated this 7th day of September, 2010.