From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hill v. Allison

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Jun 8, 2022
2:21-cv-01798-KJM-KJN (E.D. Cal. Jun. 8, 2022)

Opinion

2:21-cv-01798-KJM-KJN

06-08-2022

Cymeyon Hill, Plaintiff, v. Kathleen Allison, et al., Defendants.


ORDER

The court construes the post-judgment filing at ECF No. 10 as a motion to alter or amend the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). See Am. Ironworks & Erectors, Inc. v. N. Am. Const. Corp., 248 F.3d 892, 898-99 (9th Cir. 2001). A district court may grant a Rule 59(e) motion if it “is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.” McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 1255 (9th Cir. 1999) (en banc) (emphasis in original) (quoting 389 Orange St. Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999)). Plaintiff identifies no newly discovered evidence, clear error, or change in controlling law. His motion is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Hill v. Allison

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Jun 8, 2022
2:21-cv-01798-KJM-KJN (E.D. Cal. Jun. 8, 2022)
Case details for

Hill v. Allison

Case Details

Full title:Cymeyon Hill, Plaintiff, v. Kathleen Allison, et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Jun 8, 2022

Citations

2:21-cv-01798-KJM-KJN (E.D. Cal. Jun. 8, 2022)