Wright

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ALLEN HAMMLER, No. 2:15-cv-01645-TLN-EFB Plaintiff, v. ORDER J. WRIGHT, Defendant. 16 This matter is before the Court pursuant to Plaintiff Allen Hammler’s (“Plaintiff”) “Motion for Clarification and or Rule 59(e) Reconsideration” (ECF No. 156), which the Court construes as a motion for reconsideration. Plaintiff challenges Undisputed Fact No. 13 of the magistrate judge’s Final Pretrial Order. (See ECF Nos. 106, 116.) Defendant J. Wright (“Defendant”) filed an opposition to the motion (ECF No. 159) and Plaintiff filed a reply (ECF No. 171). For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED. “Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” School Dist. No. 1J v. AC and S, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). …