1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Paul Patrick Jolivette, No. 2:21-cv-00382-KJM-EFB 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER 13 Vv. 14 People of California, et al., 1S Defendants. 16 17 The court construes the objections at ECF No. 33 as a motion to alter or amend the 18 | judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59. See Am. Ironworks & Erectors, Inc. v. N. 19 | Am. Constr. Corp.,

, 898-99 (9th Cir. 2001). The motion, so construed, is denied. 20 | See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or., v. ACandS, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 21 | 1993) (listing factors for reconsideration under Rule 59(e)). 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 DATED: February 22, 2022.

CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE