1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ANTHONY SMITH, Case No. 19-cv-03683-SI 8 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 9 v. RECONSIDERATION 10 S PEARMAN, Re: Dkt. No. 8 11 Respondent.

13 Petitioner’s “motion for review: mandation [sic] of issuing the writ” is construed to be a 14 || motion for reconsideration of the order of dismissal. Docket No. 8. A motion for reconsideration 3 15 |} under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) ““should not be granted, absent highly unusual a 16 || circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed 3 17 clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the law.”’ McDowell v. Calderon,

, 18 1255 (9th Cir. 1999) (citation omitted) (en banc). Petitioner’s motion does not show newly 19 discovered evidence, clear error by the Court, or an intervening change in the law; rather, the motion 20 || reflects nothing more than disagreement with the Court’s order of dismissal and judgment. The 21 motion for reconsideration therefore is DENIED. Docket No. 8. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 || Dated: November 5, 2019 Site WU tee 24 SUSAN ILLSTON 25 United States District Judge 26 27 28