1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 DAI NGUYEN, Case No. 23cv1142-JO-KSC CDCR #T-01859, 11 ORDER DENYING AMENDED Plaintiff, 12 MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL vs. AND DENYING MOTION FOR 13 RECONSIDERATION

14 K. WILLIAMS, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 19 Plaintiff Dai Nguyen is a state prisoner incarcerated at Calipatria State Prison in 20 Calipatria, California. Proceeding pro se, he filed this lawsuit alleging that correctional 21 counselors violated his constitutional rights when they denied his requests to transfer 22 prisons to be closer to his attorneys and court proceedings. See Dkt. 9 (“First Amended 23 Complaint”). On June 3, 2024, the Court entered a final judgment of dismissal for failure 24 to state a claim pursuant to

(e)(2)(B)(ii) and § 1915A(b)(1). Dkt. 14. 25 After this case was dismissed and closed, Plaintiff filed “Objections” to this ruling, Dkt. 26 17, and a motion to appoint counsel. Dkt. 15. 27 Because Plaintiff’s Objections challenge the Court’s final judgment in this case, the 28 Court will construe this filing as a motion for reconsideration under Federal Rules of Civil 1 Procedure Rule 59(e) and S.D. Cal. Civil Local Rule 7.1(i). “In general, there are four 2 basic grounds upon which a [reconsideration] motion may be granted: (1) if such motion 3 is necessary to correct manifest errors of law or fact upon which the judgment rests; (2) if 4 such motion is necessary to present newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence; 5 (3) if such motion is necessary to prevent manifest injustice; or (4) if the amendment is 6 justified by an intervening change in controlling law.” Allstate Ins. Co. v. Herron, 634

, 1111 (9th Cir. 2011); See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e); S.D. Cal. CivLR 7.1(i). Because 8 reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy, such motions “should not be granted, absent 9 highly unusual circumstances.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & 10 Co.,

(9th Cir. 2009). Moreover, a reconsideration motion “may not be 11 used to raise arguments or present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably 12 have been raised earlier in the litigation.”

(quoting Kona Enterprises, Inc. v. Estate of 13 Bishop,

, 890 (9th Cir. 2000)). 14 Here, the Court previously dismissed Plaintiff’s claims and concluded that their 15 deficiencies could not be cured by additional allegations. Dkt. 14. Plaintiff has identified 16 no change in controlling law, no newly discovered facts, and no manifest error that would 17 justify modifying the Court’s previous conclusion. See Allstate, 634 F.3d at 1111. He 18 appears to merely disagree with the Court’s legal determination; such disagreements do 19 not amount to manifest injustice and are insufficient to warrant relief under Rule 59(e). 20 CONCLUSION AND ORDER 21 Accordingly, the Court: 22 1) DENIES Plaintiff’s Objections, which the Court liberally construes as a motion 23 for reconsideration, Dkt. 17; 24 2) DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiff’s amended motion to appoint counsel, Dkt. 15, 25 as the case is closed, and; 26 3) CERTIFIES that an IFP appeal from either this order or the Court’s June 3, 2024, 27 Order would be frivolous and therefore not taken in good faith pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 28 § 1915(a)(3). I IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 ||DATE: June 12, 2024 3 Hon. Jinsook Ohta 4 United States District Judge 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3