Hill

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 Raul Rodriguez, No. 2: 2:20-cv-01268-KJM-KJN Plaintiff, ORDER v. Rick Hill, Defendant. 16 Petitioner, an incarcerated person in state prison proceeding pro se, has filed a “reply” to this court’s order. ECF No. 14. After reviewing the report, the court construes the motion as seeking to alter or amend the prior order. Under Rule 59(e), a party may move to “alter or amend a judgment” within twenty-eight days of the entry of the judgment. Although the Rule does not list specific grounds for such a motion, the Ninth Circuit has said that a Rule 59(e) motion may be granted if “(1) the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) the district court committed clear error or made an initial decision that was manifestly unjust, or (3) there is an intervening change in controlling law.” Zimmerman v. City of Oakland, 255 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir. 2001). This court has “wide discretion” when considering such a motion. …