Boyd v. Overman

FILED IN THE 2 U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 3 Sep 18, 2020 4 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON NICOLAS CHRISTOPHER BOYD, a.k.a.

10 Nicholas Michael Brinkley, NO. 2:19-CV-00395-SAB 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. CORRECTIONS OFFICER IRWIN, ORDER DENYING MOTIONS CORRECTIONS OFFICER LESLIE, and FOR RECONSIDERATION CORRECTIONS OFFICER VILLAREAL, 16 Defendants.

18 On August 27, 2020, the Court entered an Order denying a number of pending motions that were filed by Plaintiff. ECF No 57. Plaintiff then filed two more documents seemingly seeking the same relief that he sought in those motions.

21 ECF Nos. 58, 59. For example, with his latest filings Plaintiff asks for appointment of counsel and is seeking a restraining order and change of venue. The Court addressed these same requests in its Order denying his motions. Because of this, the Court will construe the most recent filings as motions for reconsideration.

25 Plaintiff is a prisoner who is representing himself in this matter 26 Motions for reconsideration are generally disfavored. Kona Enterprises, Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). A motion for reconsideration is not appropriate if used to revisit issues already addressed by the Court or to advance new arguments that could have been raised in prior briefing.

2 American Ironworks & Erectors, Inc. v. N. Am. Const. Corp., 248 F.3d 892, 898- 99 (9th Cir. 2001). Instead, a motion for reconsideration should be granted, “absent highly unusual circumstances,” only if the court is: (1) presented with new evidence; (2) committed clear error; or (3) if there is an intervening change in the controlling law. Kona Enterprises, 229 F.3d at 890. Whether or not to grant reconsideration is committed to the sound discretion of the court.” Navajo Nation v. Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Indian Nation, 331 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th Cir. 2003).

10 Plaintiff has not shown the Court committed clear error. Contrary to his belief, Plaintiff is not entitled to assistance of counsel in bringing this civil action.

12 This Court declines to order that Plaintiff be moved from Grant County jail or enter a restraining order against the three officer Defendants for the reasons stated in the prior order.

15 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 16 1. Plaintiff’s Motions for Reconsideration, ECF Nos 58, 59, are DENIED.

17 IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Clerk is hereby directed to enter this Order and to provide copies to counsel and Plaintiff.

19 DATED this 18th day of September 2020.