Matteson

(HC) Stephen v. Matteson

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaAugust 30, 20222:20-cv-01003California367 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 Jimmie Stephen, No. 2:20-cev-1003-KJM-KJN Petitioner, ORDER v. Warden G. Matteson, 1S Respondent. 16 Petitioner Jimmie Stephen moves this court to reconsider its order adopting the magistrate 18 judge’s findings and recommendations and entering judgment in this case. See generally Mot. Recons., ECF No. 43. Stephen moved for reconsideration eleven days after this court entered judgment, so Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) applies. See Fed R. Civ. P. 59(e) (“A motion to alter or amend a judgment must be filed no later than 28 days after the entry of the judgment.”). A Rule 59(e) motion “should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the 23 district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an 24 intervening change in the controlling law.” 389 Orange Street Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999). 26…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.