Pittsley
MICHAEL WITKIN v. PITTSLEY
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10 ----oo0oo---- 11 12 MICHAEL WITKIN, No. 2:22-cv-1211 WBS CSK P 13 Plaintiff, 14 v. ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE JUDGMENT
PITTSLEY,
16 Defendant. 17 ----oo0oo---- On October 1, 2025, this court rejected the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations and ruled that defendant was entitled to qualified immunity. (See Docket No. 47.) This court correspondingly granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment and denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. (See id.) Plaintiff now moves to amend the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) on the grounds that the court made plain errors of law and fact. (Docket No. 49 at 1-2.) Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), “amending a judgment after its entry [is] an extraordinary remedy which should be used sparingly.” Allstate Ins. Co. v. Herron, 634 F.3d 2 1101, 1111 (9th Cir. 2011) (quotation marks omitted). “In 3…