The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 | Brandon R. Johnson, No. 2:23-cv-0908 KJM JDP (PC)
12 Plaintiff, ORDER
13 v.
Warden, et al.,
1S Defendants.
16
17 Plaintiff Brandon Johnson, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a response to this
18 | court’s order adopting in part the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations. See Resp.,
19 | ECF No. 35; Prior Order (May 23, 2024), ECF No. 34. The court construes this response as a
20 | motion for reconsideration.
21 Generally, reconsideration is appropriate if there has been an intervening change in
22 | controlling law, new evidence has become available, or it is necessary to correct clear error or
23 | prevent manifest injustice. Cachil Dehe Band of Wintun Indians of Colusa Indian Cmty. v.
24 | California, 649 F. Supp. 2d 1063, 1069 (E.D. Cal. 2009) (citing Sch. Dist. No. 1J Multnomah
25 | County, Oregon v. ACandsS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir.1993)). Here, plaintiff does not
26 | argue there has been a change in controlling law or present any newly discovered evidence. See
27 | generally Resp. Nor does plaintiff identify any clear error or other unusual circumstance
28 | justifying reconsideration. See generally id. Instead, plaintiff reasserts the facts of his case and
1 | claims. See generally id. But “[a] party seeking reconsideration must show more than a
2 | disagreement with the [c]ourt’s decision, and recapitulation of that which was already considered
3 | 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
5 | that its prior decision referred this matter back to the assigned magistrate judge to consider
6 | whether plaintiff sufficiently stated: (1) a § 1983 claim for ratification of an unconstitutional
7 | action; (2) a state law claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress against defendant
8 | 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,
10 | such a request is denied.
11 This order resolves ECF No. 35.
12 IT IS SO ORDERED.
13 DATED: August 22, 2024.
14
15 CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
45
1