1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 | Cymeyon Hill, No. 2:21-cv-01798-KJM-KJIN 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 Vv. 14 Kathleen Allison, et al., 1S Defendants. 16 17 The court construes the post-judgment filing at ECF No. 10 as a motion to alter or amend 18 | the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). See Am. Ironworks & Erectors, Inc. v. 19 | NM Am. Const. Corp.,

, 898-99 (9th Cir. 2001). A district court may grant a Rule 20 | 59(e) motion if it “is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there 21 | is an intervening change in the controlling law.” McDowell v. Calderon,

, 1255 22 | (9th Cir. 1999) (en banc) (emphasis in original) (quoting 389 Orange St. Partners v. Arnold, 23 |

(9th Cir. 1999)). Plaintiff identifies no newly discovered evidence, clear error, 24 | or change in controlling law. His motion is denied. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 DATED: June 8, 2022. 27 ee CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE