(PC) Thomas v. Fry

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Otis Michael Thomas, No. 2:19-cv-01041-KJM-CKD

Plaintiff, ORDER Vv.

Kathleen Allison, et al., 1S Defendants.

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).

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.

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

This order resolves ECF No. 48.

1] IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 18, 2021.

CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE