(PC) Davis v. Walker

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA KENNARD DAVIS, No. 2:08-cv-0593 KJM SCR P 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. JAMES WALKER, et al., 15 Defendants.

17 KENNARD DAVIS, No. 2:10-cv-2139 KJM SCR P 18 Plaintiff, 19 v. JAMES WALKER, et al., 21 Defendants.

24 Plaintiff, a state prisoner, proceeds with these civil rights actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.1 On April 27, 2025, plaintiff filed a motion, see ECF Nos. 461, which the court construes as objections to the magistrate judge’s Findings and Recommendations of March 4, 2025, see ECF Unless otherwise noted, the electronic filing numbers in the text refer to the docket in the 2008 case.

1 | No. 421. The court overrules these objections for the same reasons stated in its June 6, 2025, | order. See ECF No. 479. Plaintiff has also submitted motions for reconsideration of the court’s || June 6, 2025 order that adopted the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations. See ECF | Nos. 481, 485, 486, 488, 503.’

5 Motions for reconsideration should “not be used to ask the court to rethink what the court || [has] already thought through—tightly or wrongly.” United States v. Rezzonico, 32 F. Supp. 2d.

7 || 1112, 1116 (D. Ariz. 1998). A motion for reconsideration should present “newly discovered || evidence” or show the court “committed clear error” or argue there has been an “intervening || change in the controlling law.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., | 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting 389 Orange St. Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 | (9th Cir. 1999)). Upon review, the court finds its rulings were not clearly erroneous, there has not | been an intervening change in the law and plaintiff has not presented newly discovered evidence.

13 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 14 1. Plaintiff's objections at No. 2:08-cv-0593 KJM SCR P: ECF No. 461 are overruled.

15 2. Plaintiff's motions to reconsider at 16 e No. 2:08-cv-0593 KJM SCR P: ECF Nos. 481, 485, 486, 488, 503 are 17 denied.

18 e No. 2:10-cv-2139-KJM-SCR-P: ECF Nos. 518, 522, 534 are denied.

19 3. Based upon the repetitive nature of plaintiff's filings and based upon the court’s ruling | that plaintiff is not competent to proceed as a party in these actions, the clerk of the court is || directed to only docket filings by plaintiff's guardian ad litem, who has recently been appointed || to temporarily represent plaintiff in both cases.

23 IT IS SO ORDERED.

24 | DATED: August 13, 2025. bet 25 — j| FV/ STATES DISTRICT JUDGE □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ ? Plaintiff has also filed three similar motions for reconsideration in the 2010 case. See ECF Nos. | 518, 522, 534.