Opinion
2:19-cv-00416-TLN-DB
09-29-2021
ANTHONY DEWAYNE LEE TURNER, Plaintiff, v. SACRAMENTO CITY FIRE DEPT., et. al., Defendants.
ORDER
Troy L. Nunley, United States District Judge
On August 9, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Appoint Counsel (ECF No. 41), which the magistrate judge subsequently denied (ECF No. 42). On August 25, 2021, Plaintiff filed a “Motion for Judicial Intervention and Motion for Reconsideration” of the magistrate judge's decision. (ECF No. 44.) This Court, upon review, found that reconsideration was not warranted and affirmed the magistrate judge's findings. (ECF No. 45.)
On September 20, 2021, Plaintiff filed a “Request for Judicial Intervention, ” (ECF No. 46), and on September 22, 2021, Plaintiff filed a document titled “Request for Reconsideration” (ECF No. 47). Through his motions, Plaintiff renews his request for counsel and argues that he met the standard in his prior request of showing that the magistrate judge's order was “clearly erroneous.” (ECF No. 47 at 2.)
“Under Rule 59(e), 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).
Plaintiff highlights several cases to support his request for reconsideration. (See generally ECF No. 47.) These cases are unavailing and, moreover, Plaintiff fails to provide any information or new evidence that will change the outcome of the order. The Court has carefully reviewed the entire file, including Plaintiffs requests. (ECF Nos. 46, 47.) The Court finds the magistrate judge's order as well as this Court's prior order are supported by the record and by proper analysis. Simply put, the Rule 59(e) standard is not met here.
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs Request for Judicial Intervention (ECF No. 46) and Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 47) are hereby DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.