Hearn

Hearn v. Warden

Good Law
United States District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaJuly 12, 20243:22-cv-00255California239 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

I UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 || William HEARN, Case No.: 22-cv-0255-AGS-DDL Plantitt.| ORDER ON OBJECTION TO 5 || V. ORDER (ECF 85) || RJD WARDEN, et al., Defendants. 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 || 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 a motion for reconsideration, that motion would fail. “[A] motion for reconsideration |/should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is ||presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an |/intervening change…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.