Pearman

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ANTHONY SMITH, Case No. 19-cv-03683-SI 8 Petitioner,

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

9 v. RECONSIDERATION 10 S PEARMAN, Re: Dkt. No. 8 11 Respondent.

13 Petitioner’s “motion for review: mandation [sic] of issuing the writ” is construed to be a 14 || motion for reconsideration of the order of dismissal. Docket No. 8. A motion for reconsideration 3 15 |} under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) ““should not be granted, absent highly unusual a 16 || circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed 3 17 clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the law.”’ McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 18 1255 (9th Cir. 1999) (citation omitted) (en banc). Petitioner’s motion does not show newly 19 discovered evidence, clear error by the Court, or an intervening change in the law; rather, the motion 20 || reflects nothing more…