(PC) Ruiz v. Hubbard ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROGELIO MAY RUIZ, No. 2:19-cv-02351-KJM-KJN P 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. 14 A. HUBBARD et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 The court is in receipt of plaintiff Rogelio Ruiz’s motion at ECF No. 13, which it 19 | construes as a motion for to alter or amend the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20 | 59(e). “Under Rule 59(e), a motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly 21 | unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, 22 | committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.” 389 Orange St. 23 | Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999). Because Mr. Ruiz’s motion does not meet 24 | that standard, it is denied. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 DATED: October 13, 2020. 28 CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE