(PC) Gore v. Newsom ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Samuel Lee Gore, No. 2:21-cv-01189-KJM-DMC 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. 14 Gavin Newsom, 1S Defendant. 16 17 The court construes the request at ECF No. 19 as a motion for relief from the judgment 18 | under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). See Am. Ironworks & Erectors, Inc. v. N. Am. 19 | Constr. Corp., 248 F.3d 892, 898-99 (9th Cir. 2001) (explaining motions to reconsider filed after 20 | timeline under Rule 59(e) are automatically construed as Rule 60(b) motions). The motion, so 21 | construed, is denied. Plaintiff has not offered new evidence, identified a change in the controlling 22 | law, or shown clear error or manifest injustice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1)-(6); Am. Ironworks, 23 | 248 F.3d at 899. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 DATED: February 25, 2022. 26 ee CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE