MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, Jr., District Judge.

On October 24, 2011, Plaintiff Michael R. Jones ("Plaintiff"), proceeding pro se, brought this civil action pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 522a(g)(1) to remedy alleged violations of the Privacy Act of 1974. Compl., ECF No. 1. Specifically, Plaintiff sought "to enjoin the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs . . . from continuing to improperly withhold Federal Workers' Compensation records" and other agency records. ECF No. 62 at 2. On February 26, 2013, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's Complaint in its entirely but granted Plaintiff leave to amend on his "catch-all damages" claim only. Order, ECF No. 56. On May 13, 2013, the remaining catch-all damages claim was dismissed with prejudice. Order, ECF No. 59. Plaintiff then moved for reconsideration, and his motion was denied. ECF Nos. 62, 73. Thereafter, on August 15, 2013, Plaintiff filed Objections. See ECF No. 83.

Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal on October 2, 2013. ECF No. 76. On July 1, 2014, this Court concluded that Plaintiff's Objections did not qualify as a "motion" for the purposes of calculating Plaintiff's appellate deadlines under the Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(4). Id.; see also ECF No. 80. On July 7, 2014, Plaintiff filed an Amended Notice of Appeal as to this Court's July 1, 2014, Order regarding his August 15, 2013, Objections filing. ECF No. 85.

On August 19, 2014, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an Order in which it dismissed Plaintiff's October 2, 2013, appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See Order, ECF No. 89 (Ninth Circuit Case No. 13-17088). Thereafter, at the direction of the Ninth Circuit, this Court processed Plaintiff's July 7, 2014, Amended Notice of Appeal from this Court's July 1, 2014, Order as a new notice of appeal. Id.; see ECF Nos. 85, 90.

Accordingly, a new appellate case number, 14-16599, was opened.

On July 28, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Strike and Objections to the District Court's New Notice of Appeal and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal's Notice. Mot., ECF No. 93. In his Motion, Plaintiff objects to this Court's administrative re-filing of his Amended Notice of Appeal (ECF No. 90) because it was not filed by Plaintiff. Id. Plaintiff also filed a "Corrected" Second Amended Notice of Appeal. ECF No. 94.

Plaintiff's pending Motion to Strike and Objections ask this Court to reconsider the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' August 19, 2014, Order in Case No. 13-17088, ECF No. 89. Specifically, Plaintiff asks that this Court strike its issuance of a new appellate case number, which this Court issued at the direction of the Ninth Circuit. See ECF Nos. 89, 93. The relief requested by Plaintiff is not available from this Court. The Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure as well as the relevant Circuit Rules govern motions for reconsideration of Ninth Circuit orders. Plaintiff must adhere to these rules if he seeks reconsideration of the Ninth Circuit's August 18, 2014, Order in Case No. 13-17088.1 See, e.g., Circuit Rule 27-10 (explaining that "[a] party seeking further consideration of an order that disposes of the entire case on the merits, terminates a case, or otherwise concludes the proceedings . . . must comply with the time limits and other requirements of FRAP 40 and Circuit Rule 40-1").2 Therefore, Plaintiff's pending Motion, ECF No. 93, is DENIED without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.