(HC)Henderson v. State of California ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 Lance K. Henderson, No. 2:20-cv-1305-KJM-DB Petitioner, ORDER 12 Vv. 13 State of California, 4 Respondent. 15 16 The court is in receipt of petitioner Lance Henderson’s post-judgment request for an 17 | evidentiary hearing. ECF No. 11. Because that request was filed within twenty-eight days of the 18 | judgment, the court construes it as a motion for relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19 | 59(e). See Am. Ironworks & Erectors, Inc. v. N. Am. Const. Corp., 248 F.3d 892, 898-99 (9th 20 | Cir. 2001). “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) (citation omitted). Petitioner’s request 24 | does not satisfy this standard and is denied. Any future requests for relief on similar grounds will 25 | be disregarded. 26 This order resolves ECF No. 11. 27 IT IS SO ORDERED. / / 28 DATED: March 15, 2021. CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE