Lampkin

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 TRISHKA LAMPKIN AND ROBERT No. 2:20-cv-01204-JAM-JDP

CORTEZ,

12 Plaintiffs, 13 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ v. MOTION TO VACATE 14

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, M. SPANGER

15 in his official capacity, and

MATTHEW CORTEZ,

16 Defendants. 17 18 This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ motion to 19 vacate the Court’s orders granting Defendant’s motion for summary 20 judgment and motion for sanctions. See Mot. to Vacate (“Mot.”), 21 ECF No. 28; Order Granting MSJ, ECF No. 25; Order Granting 22 Sanctions, ECF No. 26. For the reasons set forth below, the 23 Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion to vacate.1 24 /// 25 /// 26

27 1 This motion was determined to be suitable for decision without oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). The hearing was 28 scheduled for November 1, 2022. 1 I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 2 As the facts are already known to the parties, the Court 3 repeats them only as necessary to explain its decision. 4 …