(PC) Johnson v. Warden

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA | Brandon R. Johnson, No. 2:23-cv-0908 KJM JDP (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. Warden, et al., 1S Defendants.

17 Plaintiff Brandon Johnson, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a response to this | court’s order adopting in part the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations. See Resp., | ECF No. 35; Prior Order (May 23, 2024), ECF No. 34. The court construes this response as a | motion for reconsideration.

21 Generally, reconsideration is appropriate if there has been an intervening change in | controlling law, new evidence has become available, or it is necessary to correct clear error or | prevent manifest injustice. Cachil Dehe Band of Wintun Indians of Colusa Indian Cmty. v. | California, 649 F. Supp. 2d 1063, 1069 (E.D. Cal. 2009) (citing Sch. Dist. No. 1J Multnomah | County, Oregon v. ACandsS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993)). Here, plaintiff does not | argue there has been a change in controlling law or present any newly discovered evidence. See | generally Resp. Nor does plaintiff identify any clear error or other unusual circumstance | justifying reconsideration. See generally id. Instead, plaintiff reasserts the facts of his case and | claims. See generally id. But “[a] party seeking reconsideration must show more than a | disagreement with the [c]ourt’s decision, and recapitulation of that which was already considered | by the [cJourt in rendering its decision.” United States v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F. Supp. 2d 4 | 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001) (citations and quotations omitted). Furthermore, the court reiterates | that its prior decision referred this matter back to the assigned magistrate judge to consider | whether plaintiff sufficiently stated: (1) a § 1983 claim for ratification of an unconstitutional | action; (2) a state law claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress against defendant | French; and (3) a claim against defendants Luca, Reimche, and Brown for failure to intervene.

9 | See Prior Order (May 23, 2024) at 2. Accordingly, to the extent plaintiff seeks reconsideration, | such a request is denied.

11 This order resolves ECF No. 35.

12 IT IS SO ORDERED.

13 DATED: August 22, 2024.

15 CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE