Chesney

Austin v. Chesney

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaJuly 1, 20223:22-cv-02506California684 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GEORGE JARVIS AUSTIN, Plaintiff, No. C 22-02506 WHA

v.

MAXINE CHESNEY, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION

Defendant.

15 16 Pro se plaintiff filed this action against United States District Court Judge Maxine M. Chesney. A prior order dismissed the action with prejudice (Dkt. No. 18). Plaintiff now moves for reconsideration. Our court of appeals has stated the following regarding motions for reconsideration: Although Rule 59(e) permits a district court to reconsider and amend a previous order, the rule offers an extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources. Indeed, 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. 25 Kona…

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.