(PC) Thomas v. Fry

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 Otis Michael Thomas, No. 2:19-cv-01041-KJM-CKD 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 Vv.

14 Kathleen Allison, et al., 1S Defendants.

17 Plaintiff Otis Michael Thomas moved for this case to proceed as a class action. ECF | No. 43. The assigned magistrate judge recommended denying that motion. ECF No. 44. This | court adopted that recommendation, ECF No. 47, over Thomas’s objection, ECF No. 46. Thomas | now files Objections to the Findings and Recommendations, ECF No. 48. The court construes | this filing as a request for reconsideration or relief from a judgment brought under either Rule | 59(e) or Rule 60(b). Fuller v. M.G. Jewelry, 950 F.2d 1437, 1442 (9th Cir. 1991) (citation | omitted). As Thomas filed the objections within twenty-eight days of the entry of judgment, the | court considers the motion under Rule 59(e).

25 Thomas’s latest filing does not present a basis for reconsideration. “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) (citation omitted). Similarly, Local Rule 230())(3)+(4) requires that a movant | seeking reconsideration identify “what new or different facts or circumstances” exist, or any other | grounds, to justify reconsideration of a court's prior order. E.D. Cal. R. 230G)(3)-(4). Here, the | objections are nearly identical to those Thomas filed previously, which the court considered when | issuing its ruling. The only additions, including attaching the Findings and Recommendations | and underlining the sections he disagrees with, do not provide grounds for reconsideration under | the relevant rules.

8 The court construes the filing at ECF 48 as a request for reconsideration, and so | construed, denies it.

10 This order resolves ECF No. 48.

1] IT IS SO ORDERED.

12 DATED: October 18, 2021.

CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE