Martinez
Martinez v. P.
Opinion
trial_court Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANTONIO MARTINEZ, JR., Case No.: 1:22-cv-01134 JLT SKO 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO REOPEN
CASE
13 v. (Doc. 29) 14 BRUCE P., et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 The Court entered judgment in this matter on August 24, 2023, following the Court’s 18 dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims for failure to prosecute and failure to obey a court order. (See Docs. 19 26, 27, 28.) Plaintiff now moves to reopen the case. (Doc. 29.) Because the motion was filed 20 within 28 days of the final judgment, the Court construes the motion as made pursuant to Federal 21 Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) to modify the judgment. For the reasons set forth below, the motion 22 is DENIED. 23 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) permits a party to move a court to alter or amend its 24 judgment. “A district court may grant a Rule 59(e) motion if it is presented with newly discovered 25 evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling 26 law.” Wood v. Ryan, 759 F.3d 1117, 1121…