Hearn v. Warden
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Andrew G. Schopler (author)
Analysis
Plaintiff William Hearn filed a renewed objection to a magistrate judge's order denying his motions to appoint counsel and to file a third amended complaint. The District Court denied the renewed objections and denied the filing as a motion for reconsideration because Hearn offered no new rationale or basis for relief.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Renewed objections to the magistrate judge's order denying motions to appoint counsel and to file a third amended complaint are denied.“Because Hearn offers no new rationale, the renewed objections are denied for the same reasons the Court previously provided.” | agree with court The court previously overruled these specific objections (ECF 76). The order states that the plaintiff offers no new rationale. Denying a renewed objection that is identical to a previously denied one is procedurally appropriate. |
The filing is denied as a motion for reconsideration.“Even if the Court were to recharacterize Hearn’s filing a motion for reconsideration, that motion would fail... the motion is denied.” | agree with court The court applies the standard for reconsideration (newly discovered evidence, clear error, or intervening change in law). It finds that Hearn merely reiterates disagreement, which does not meet the standard. This is a correct application of the law. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the procedural posture (renewed objection/reconsideration) and applies the correct standard from Ninth Circuit precedent. It relies on the prior order (ECF 76) for the substantive reasons, which is efficient and appropriate given the lack of new arguments.
Opinion
I UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 || William HEARN, Case No.: 22-cv-0255-AGS-DDL 4 Plantitt.| ORDER ON OBJECTION TO 5 || V. ORDER (ECF 85) 6 || RJD WARDEN, et al., 7 Defendants. 8 Plaintiff William Hearn objects once again to the magistrate judge’s denial of his 9 || motions to appoint counsel and to file a third amended complaint. (Compare ECF 72 with 10 || ECF 85.) This Court previously overruled those same objections. (See ECF 76.) Because 11 || Hearn offers no new rationale, the renewed objections are denied for the same reasons the 12 || Court previously provided. (See id.) Even if the Court were to recharacterize Hearn’s filing 13 a motion for reconsideration, that motion would fail. “[A] motion for reconsideration 14 |/should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is 15 ||presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an 16 |/intervening change in the controlling law.” 389 Orange St. Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 17 ||656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999). Because Hearn “merely reiterate[s] [his] disagreement with the 18 || order” and does not provide a proper basis for reconsideration, the motion is denied. See 19 || Stephens v. County of Hawaii Police Dep’t, 584 F. App’x 506, 507 (9th Cir. 2014). 20 ||Dated: July 12, 2024 Hon. Andrew G. Schopler United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28