(PC) Davis v. Walker

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 Kennard Lee Davis, No. 2:10-cv-02139-KJM-DB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. James Walker, et al., 1S Defendants.

17 Following the Ninth Court’s mandate to consider plaintiff Kennard Lee Davis’s motions | to reopen this case and reassess his competency to proceed, see USCA Mandate, ECF No. 336; | USCA Memorandum, ECF No. 335, this court issued an order referring the case to Magistrate | Judge Deborah Barnes for further proceedings as appropriate, see Min. Order (Nov. 10, 2022), | ECF No. 348. Davis filed “objections” to this order, see ECF No. 353, which the court construes | asa motion to reconsider its decision to refer the case to Judge Barnes.

23 While a court may relieve a party from an order under Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of | Civil Procedure for “mistake, inadvertence, fraud, or excusable neglect” or for “any other reason | that justifies relief,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1), (b)(6), plaintiff does not claim new facts or | circumstances exist or otherwise offer a reason justifying relief, see E.D. Cal. R. 230G)(3), (4).

27 | “[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). The court denies plaintiff’s request for reconsideration.

3 This order resolves ECF No. 353.

4 IT IS SO ORDERED.

5 DATED: December 8, 2022. [\ (] 6 l ti / { q_/ CHIEF NT] ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE