Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-03683/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-03683-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
S Pearman
Respondent
Anthony Smith
Petitioner

Document Text:

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY SMITH,

Petitioner,

v.

S PEARMAN,

Respondent.

Case No. 19-cv-03683-SI 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION

Re: Dkt. No. 8

Petitioner’s “motion for review: mandation [sic] of issuing the writ” is construed to be a 

motion for reconsideration of the order of dismissal. Docket No. 8. A motion for reconsideration 

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) ‘“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 law.”’ McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 

1255 (9th Cir. 1999) (citation omitted) (en banc). Petitioner’s motion does not show newly 

discovered evidence, clear error by the Court, or an intervening change in the law; rather, the motion

reflects nothing more than disagreement with the Court’s order of dismissal and judgment. The 

motion for reconsideration therefore is DENIED. Docket No. 8.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 5, 2019

______________________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:19-cv-03683-SI Document 9 Filed 11/05/19 Page 1 of 1