KENDALL J. NEWMAN, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of this court's order and judgment entered May 24, 2013, wherein the court found that plaintiff's proposed Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 22), like his original complaint (ECF No. 1), and First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 15), failed to state a potentially cognizable claim, and that further amendment of the complaint would be futile. (See ECF Nos. 10, 17, 23.) Plaintiff states that he is only now seeking reconsideration because, due to a mailing mix-up by CDCR, it took nearly a month for plaintiff to receive a copy of the court's final order. Plaintiff seeks reconsideration, without citation to authority, on the ground that he would be able to allege sufficient facts to state a cognizable legal claim if permitted to file a further amended complaint.
For the reasons stated in the court's order closing this action (ECF No. 23), the court again finds that further amendment of the complaint would be futile. "[A] district court should grant leave to amend... unless it determines that the pleading could not possibly be cured by the allegation of other facts." Lopez v. Smith , 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000); see also Hartmann v. Cal. Dep't of Corr. & Rehab. , 707 F.3d 1114, 1130 (9th Cir. 2013) ("[a] district court may deny leave to amend when amendment would be futile").
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 26) is denied. This action shall remain closed, and the court will ...