Pittsley

1 2

3

4

5

6

7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

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 15 TO SET ASIDE JUDGMENT

PITTSLEY,

16 Defendant. 17 18 ----oo0oo---- 19 On October 1, 2025, this court rejected the Magistrate 20 Judge’s Findings and Recommendations and ruled that defendant was 21 entitled to qualified immunity. (See Docket No. 47.) This court 22 correspondingly granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment 23 and denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. (See id.) 24 Plaintiff now moves to amend the judgment under Federal 25 Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) on the grounds that the court made 26 plain errors of law and fact. (Docket No. 49 at 1-2.) 27 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), “amending 28 a judgment after its entry [is] an extraordinary remedy which 1 should be used sparingly.” Allstate Ins. Co. v. Herron, 634 F.3d 2 1101, 1111 (9th Cir. 2011) (quotation marks omitted). “In 3…