(HC) Biagas v. State of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 Vincent James Biagas, Sr., No. 2:21-cv-0109 KJM CKD P Plaintiff, ORDER v. State of California, et al., Defendants. 16 Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed “objections” to the court’s adoption of the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations. See ECF No. 20. Although plaintiff does not identify the basis of his motion, the court construes this as a motion for relief from a judgment or order under Rule 59(e) because it was filed within the 28-day window required by Rule 59. Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). For the following reasons, plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED. 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…