(PC)Hill

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 Cymeyon Hill, No. 2:21-cv-01798-KJM-KJIN Plaintiff, ORDER Vv. Kathleen Allison, et al., 1S Defendants. 16 The court construes the post-judgment filing at ECF No. 10 as a motion to alter or amend 18 the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). See Am. Ironworks & Erectors, Inc. v. NM Am. Const. Corp., 248 F.3d 892, 898-99 (9th Cir. 2001). A district court may grant a Rule 59(e) motion if it “is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.” McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 1255 (9th Cir. 1999) (en banc) (emphasis in original) (quoting 389 Orange St. Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999)). Plaintiff identifies no newly discovered evidence, clear error, 24 or change in controlling law. His motion is denied. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: June 8, 2022.…