1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 | Gary Grant Hampton, Jr., No. 2:20-cev-01001-KJM-DMC 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. 14 Austin, et al., 1S Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Gary Hampton, an inmate in a California state prison, filed this action and 18 | pursued it without an attorney through judgment. In January of this year, the case was pending on 19 | allegations against one defendant, Dr. Welsh, a prison psychologist. Welsh sought summary 20 | judgment based on his argument that Hampton had not filed any inmate grievances about Welsh’s 21 | actions, as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act. See generally Mot., ECF No. 55. 22 | Hampton did not file an opposition. The Magistrate Judge considered Welsh’s motion and the 23 | record and agreed there was no evidence to show Hampton had ever filed grievances about 24 | Welsh. See generally F&Rs, ECF No. 57. He recommended granting the motion. See id. 25 Hampton objected to the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations. See 26 | generally Objections, ECF No. 58. He argued he had in fact filed many complaints and 27 | grievances over the years, including many medical grievances. See, e.g., id. at 3-4. He did not, 28 | however, cite any evidence to show he had filed grievances about Welsh, as the state correctly

1 | pointed out in a reply to Hamptons objections. See generally Reply, ECF No. 59. For that 2 | reason, this court adopted the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations and granted 3 | Welsh’s summary judgment motion. See Order, ECF No. 63. Judgment was entered on 4 | September 16, 2024. ECF No. 64. 5 A few days later, Hampton filed a motion reiterating the argument he advanced in 6 | objection to the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations, 1.e., that he had filed many 7 | grievances and pursued many appeals to no avail. See Mot. Postjudgment Relief, ECF No. 65. 8 | Because he filed that motion less than twenty-eight days after the court entered judgment, it 9 | operates as a motion for reconsideration and relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). 10 | See Am. Ironworks & Erectors, Inc. v. N. Am. Constr. Corp.,

, 898-99 (9th Cir. 11 | 2001). Except in “highly unusual circumstances,” plaintiffs are not entitled to relief under Rule 12 | 59(e) unless they offer newly discovered evidence, cite changes in the controlling law, or identify 13 | clear errors. See 389 Orange St. Partners vy. Arnold,

(9th Cir. 1999). Hampton 14 | has not cited newly discovered evidence, changes in the law, or clear errors. Nor has he 15 | demonstrated these are “highly unusual circumstances.” He has reiterated arguments he offered 16 | inresponse to the Magistrate Judge’s previous findings and recommendations. Courts do not 17 | grant motions for reconsideration based on arguments they have already heard. Exxon Shipping 18 | Co. v. Baker,

, 486 n.75 (2008). 19 The motion at ECF No. 65 is denied. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 DATED: October 8, 2024. Abode 22 iA} Y ni STATES DISTRICT JUDGE