Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-00416/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-00416-13/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY DEWAYNE LEE TURNER,

Plaintiff,

v.

SACRAMENTO CITY FIRE DEPT., et. 

al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:19-cv-00416-TLN-DB

ORDER

On August 9, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Appoint Counsel (ECF No. 41), which the 

magistrate judge subsequently denied (ECF No. 42). On August 25, 2021, Plaintiff filed a 

“Motion for Judicial Intervention and Motion for Reconsideration” of the magistrate judge’s 

decision. (ECF No. 44.) This Court, upon review, found that reconsideration was not warranted 

and affirmed the magistrate judge’s findings. (ECF No. 45.) 

On September 20, 2021, Plaintiff filed a “Request for Judicial Intervention,” (ECF No. 

46), and on September 22, 2021, Plaintiff filed a document titled “Request for Reconsideration” 

(ECF No. 47). Through his motions, Plaintiff renews his request for counsel and argues that he 

met the standard in his prior request of showing that the magistrate judge’s order was “clearly 

erroneous.” (ECF No. 47 at 2.)

/ / /

Case 2:19-cv-00416-TLN-SCR Document 49 Filed 09/30/21 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

“Under Rule 59(e), 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.” 389 Orange St. 

Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999).

Plaintiff highlights several cases to support his request for reconsideration. (See generally 

ECF No. 47.) These cases are unavailing and, moreover, Plaintiff fails to provide any 

information or new evidence that will change the outcome of the order. The Court has carefully 

reviewed the entire file, including Plaintiff’s requests. (ECF Nos. 46, 47.) The Court finds the 

magistrate judge’s order as well as this Court’s prior order are supported by the record and by 

proper analysis. Simply put, the Rule 59(e) standard is not met here.

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Intervention (ECF No. 46) and

Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 47) are hereby DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATE: September 29, 2021

Troy L. Nunley

United States District Judge

Case 2:19-cv-00416-TLN-SCR Document 49 Filed 09/30/21 Page 2 of 2