Torfason

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 JAMES PAUL ANDREW TORFASON, Case No. 20-cv-07037-JSW

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION

v. 9 Dkt. No. 88 10 STEVE BERNAL, et al.,

Defendants. 11

12 Plaintiff, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights case under 42 13 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment was granted. Plaintiff filed a motion 14 for reconsideration under Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (ECF No. 88.) A 15 motion to alter or amend judgment under Rule 59(e) “not be granted, absent highly unusual 16 circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed 17 clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the law.” McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 18 1253, 1255 (9th Cir. 1999) (internal quotations and citation omitted) (en banc). Evidence is not 19 newly discovered for purposes of a Rule 59(e) motion if it was available prior to the district court's 20 ruling. See Ybarra v. McDaniel, 656 F.3d 984, 998 (9th…