Bryan

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 2:22-cv-1962 DJC AC 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 MARK LINN BRYAN, et al. 15 Defendants. 16 17 Pending before the court is Mark Linn Bryan’s motion for reconsideration, which asks the 18 undersigned to reconsider a prior order summarily denying a motion to compel discovery that was 19 filed after the discovery period closed (ECF No. 222). ECF No. 224. Bryan is appearing in in 20 pro se. 21 The court has discretion to reconsider and vacate a prior order. Barber v. Hawaii, 42 F.3d 22 1185, 1198 (9th Cir. 1994); United States v. Nutri-cology, Inc., 982 F.2d 394, 396 (9th Cir. 23 1992). Motions for reconsideration are disfavored, however, and are not the place for parties to 24 make new arguments not raised in their original briefs. Northwest Acceptance Corp. v. 25 Lynnwood Equip., Inc., 841 F.2d 918, 925–26 (9th Cir. 1988). Nor is reconsideration to be used 26 to ask the court to rethink what it has already thought. United States…