Kraft

I. INTRODUCTION

17 Plaintiff Rune Kraft, appearing pro se, filed this action on May 13, 2021 (Doc. 1), along with a “Request for Non-Prisoner Pro Se Party for Electronic Noticing” (Doc. 2) and a “Motion to Allow Electronic Filing By a Party Appearing Without an Attorney” (Doc. 3). The Court denied Plaintiff’s request for permission to receive notice and motion to file through CM/ECF on May 18, 2021. (Doc. 7.) On May 21, 2021, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting the Court to reconsider his request for electronic noticing and case filing, asserting that the lack of the ability to receive notice and to file through the CM/ECF system will disadvantage him in this litigation. (Doc. 8.)

II. LEGAL STANDARD

26 “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 in the controlling law,” and it “may not be used to raise arguments or present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been raised earlier in the litigation.” Marlyn…