ORDER

(Dkt. #93 & 94)

CHARLES R. BREYER, District Judge.

On November 4, 2015, the court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment on plaintiff's excessive force claim for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and the clerk entered judgment in favor of defendant.

On December 1, 2015, plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration and, on December 23, 2015, a copy of the motion he sent to the Ninth Circuit was forwarded and filed as a second motion for reconsideration in this court. Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration (dkt. # 93 & 94) of the court's November 4, 2015 order granting defendant's motion for summary judgment is DENIED.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) provides for reconsideration where one of more of the following is shown: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered before the court's decision; (3) fraud by the adverse party; (4) voiding of the judgment; (5) satisfaction of the judgment; (6) any other reason justifying relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b); School Dist. 1J v. ACandS Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). But plaintiff does no more than repeat the same claims and arguments he previously presented, and assert that the court got it wrong. This is not enough to justify reconsideration. See Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003) (reconsideration is not a vehicle to rehash arguments previously presented or to raise arguments or present evidence that could have been raised or presented earlier); Twentieth Century — Fox Film Corp. v. Dunnahoo, 637 F.2d 1338, 1341 (9th Cir. 1981) (motion for reconsideration is not a substitute for appeal or a means for attacking some perceived court error).

SO ORDERED.