Sanders

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PHILIP SANDERS, No. 1:22-cv-0577 JLT HBK (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION

13 v. (Doc. 20) 14 ROBERT HICKS and J. LARA, 15 Defendants. 16

17 Philip Sanders moves pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) for 18 reconsideration (Doc. 20) of the Court’s dismissal of his complaint without leave to amend (Docs. 19 18, 19).1 Sanders’ motion offers no valid basis for reconsideration. As the Court’s dismissal order 20 explained: 21 Notably, Plaintiff does not dispute the magistrate judge’s finding that he failed to state a cognizable claim in his FAC. (See generally 22 Doc. 15 at 1-4.) Plaintiff also does not dispute the recommendation that a preliminary injunction be denied. (See id.) Rather, Plaintiff’s 23 objections are focused on the recommendation that he not be given leave to amend. (Id at 2.) Plaintiff contends that because he cured 24 some deficiencies identified by the Court with his FAC—including removing…