Diviacchi

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 VALERIANO DIVIACCHI, Case No. 24-cv-07827-EMC

8 Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

9 v. MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND

JUDGMENT

10 BRANDON STALLINGS, et al., 11 Defendants. Docket No. 30

12 13 14 Previously, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss based on claim preclusion 15 (res judicata) and entered a final judgment in Defendants’ favor. Mr. Diviacchi now moves to 16 alter or amend the judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). 17 Rule 59(e) allows a party to move to alter or amend a judgment. Under Rule 59(e), relief 18 may be obtained if there was a manifest error by the Court or to prevent manifest injustice. See, 19 e.g., Allstate Ins. Co. v. Herron, 634 F.3d 1101, 1111 (9th Cir. 2011) (indicating that a Rule 59(e) 20 motion may be granted if “necessary to correct manifest errors of law or fact upon which the 21 judgment is based” or “to prevent manifest injustice”). Here, the Court concludes that, although it 22 …