Hill

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Raul Rodriguez, No. 2: 2:20-cv-01268-KJM-KJN 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. 14 Rick Hill, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Petitioner, an incarcerated person in state prison proceeding pro se, has filed a “reply” to 18 this court’s order. ECF No. 14. After reviewing the report, the court construes the motion as 19 seeking to alter or amend the prior order. 20 Under Rule 59(e), a party may move to “alter or amend a judgment” within twenty-eight 21 days of the entry of the judgment. Although the Rule does not list specific grounds for such a 22 motion, the Ninth Circuit has said that a Rule 59(e) motion may be granted if “(1) the district 23 court is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) the district court committed clear error or 24 made an initial decision that was manifestly unjust, or (3) there is an intervening change in 25 controlling law.” Zimmerman v. City of Oakland, 255 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir. 2001). This court 26 has “wide discretion” when considering such a motion. …