Wise

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL WITKIN, No. 2:19-cv-0974 KJM KJN P 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. 14 | D. WISE, etal., 1S Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Mitchel Witkin filed a motion to alter or amend this court’s judgment. For the 18 | reasons described below, the court denies plaintiff's motion. 19 A motion to amend judgment is appropriately brought under either Federal Rule of Civil 20 | Procedure 59(e) or Rule 60(b). Fuller v. M.G. Jewelry, 950 F. 2d 1437, 1442 (9th Cir. 1991) 21 | (citing Taylor v. Knapp, 871 F. 2d 803, 805 (9th Cir. 1989)). The motion “is treated as a motion 22 | to alter or amend judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) if it is filed [within the 23 | time provided by that Rule]. Am. Ironworks & Erectors, Inc. v. N. Am. Constr. Corp., 248 F.3d 24 | 892, 898-99 (9th Cir. 2001) (citations omitted). Because plaintiff's motion was filed within 25 | twenty-eight days of judgment, the court considers this…