ORDER

TROY L. NUNLEY, District Judge.

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On April 8, 2019, the Court denied Plaintiff's motions for preliminary injunctive relief seeking an order returning him to CSP-Sac (ECF No. 108) and for assistance in obtaining and protecting his legal property (ECF Nos. 105, 112, and 117). Plaintiff moves for reconsideration. (ECF No. 150.)

"Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law." School Dist. No. 1J v. AC and S, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). Further, Local Rule 230(j) requires that a motion for reconsideration state "what new or different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion," and "why the facts or circumstances were not shown at the time of the prior motion." E.D. Cal., Local Rule 230(j)(3)-(4).

Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration fails to satisfy these standards. He argues that he was denied the opportunity to respond to Defendants' supplemental brief addressing whether he was entitled to relief under the All Writs Act. (ECF No. 150.) The Court determined however, that because the trial had been continued to January 2020, no court order was "necessary" for the proper administration of justice, as required by the All Writs Act. (ECF No. 147.) The Court did not need a response from Plaintiff to resolve Plaintiff's motions.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 150) is denied.