Chau

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 PAUL C. TOMASINI, No. 2:18-cv-0286 DAD AC P Plaintiff, v. ORDER JAMES CHAU, et al., Defendants. 16 Before the court are plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the order denying his request for a stay (ECF No. 65) and his motion to voluntarily dismiss defendant D. Gentry (ECF No. 66). Reconsideration of prior orders is generally available only on grounds of newly discovered evidence, clear error, or an intervening change in the controlling law. Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009). None of these factors are present here. The motion for a stay was based on plaintiff’s separation from his legal property; he now informs the court that he has been reunited with his files but faces other circumstances that warrant a stay. ECF No. 65. The motion for reconsideration will be denied, but the operative discovery and scheduling order will be amended in light of the…