George v. Diaz
- Susan Illston
- 3:20-cv-03244
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
In George v. Diaz, Judge Illston denied reconsideration because George showed no new evidence, clear error, injustice, or changed law.
Joseph Anthony George, whose motion for reconsideration was denied.
What happened
In George v. Diaz, the court had previously dismissed the action and denied Joseph Anthony George’s second requests for a temporary restraining order and appointment of counsel. George asked the court to reconsider that order.
George argued that the court had failed to rule on his second request for appointment of counsel. The court said it had denied that request because the action was being dismissed and for reasons stated in the dismissal order. The court also found that George’s other arguments merely disagreed with its review of his filings.
Judge Susan Illston denied George’s motion for reconsideration. The court found that he had not shown newly discovered evidence, clear error or manifest injustice, or a change in controlling law.
The detailed version
- George v. Diaz · No. 3:20-cv-03244
- Susan Illston
- Dec. 4, 2020
Background
The court stated that it had dismissed this action on August 24, 2020. In that earlier order, it also denied Joseph Anthony George’s second requests for a temporary restraining order and appointment of counsel. George then moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) for reconsideration of the earlier order.
Reconsideration standard
The court explained that reconsideration under Rule 60(b) may be appropriate when there is newly discovered evidence, clear error or a manifestly unjust initial decision, or an intervening change in controlling law.
Arguments and analysis
George argued that the court had erred by failing to rule on his second request for appointment of counsel. The court rejected that argument, stating that it had denied the request because the action was being dismissed and for the reasons stated in pages 6 through 10 of the dismissal order. The court found that George’s other arguments expressed disagreement with its review of his filings but did not establish entitlement to reconsideration.
Disposition
Judge Susan Illston denied George’s motion for reconsideration. The court found that he had not shown newly discovered evidence, clear error or manifest injustice, or an intervening change in the law.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.