Hubbard

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ROGELIO MAY RUIZ, No. 2:19-cv-02351-KJM-KJN P Plaintiff, ORDER v. A. HUBBARD et al., Defendants. 16 17 The court is in receipt of plaintiff Rogelio Ruiz’s motion at ECF No. 13, which it 19 construes as a motion for to alter or amend the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20 59(e). “Under Rule 59(e), a motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, 22 committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.” 389 Orange St. Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999). Because Mr. Ruiz’s motion does not meet 24 that standard, it is denied. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: October 13, 2020.

28

CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE