1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 | Chris Eckhardt, No. 2:22-cev-01747-KJM-AC 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. Dynamic Gaming Solutions, et al., 1S Defendants. 16 17 In a previous order, the court dismissed this action as a sanction for plaintiff Chris 18 | Eckhardt’s failure to comply with the court’s orders, including in the preparation of this case for 19 | trial. See Prev. Order (Oct. 9, 2025), ECF No. 75. Eckhardt then filed an “ex parte letter brief” 20 | requesting review by the Chief Judge of this District. ECF No. 77. The court construes this filing 21 | asamotion to alter or amend the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59, as it was 22 | filed within 28 days of the judgment.' See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e).

' The court does not construe the motion as a judicial conduct or disability complaint under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980,

. If Eckhardt intended to pursue such a complaint, he is referred to the Frequently Asked Questions page on the website for the United States Courts at https://www.uscourts.gov/administration-policies/judicial- conduct-disability/faqs-filing-a-judicial-conduct-or-disability-complaint-against-a-federal-judge. The court also notes that an appeal, not a complaint to the Chief Judge, is the ordinary procedure for challenging a district court’s orders and a final judgment. See

; Fed. R. App. P. 3; E.D. Cal. L.R. 146.

1 “A district court generally should not grant a Rule 59(e) motion in the absence of ‘newly 2 | discovered evidence,’ ‘clear error,’ or ‘an intervening change in the controlling law.’” Wells 3 | Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Mahogany Meadows Ave. Tr.,

(9th Cir. 2020) (quoting 4 | 389 Orange St. Partners v. Arnold,

(9th Cir. 1999)). “A Rule 59(e) motion 5 | ‘may not be used to raise arguments or present evidence for the first time when they could 6 | reasonably have been raised earlier.”” Jd. (quoting Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 7 |

, 890 (9th Cir. 2000)). 8 Eckhardt does not offer newly discovered evidence, cite intervening changes in the law, or 9 | identify clear errors in this court’s previous decisions. His motion also raises many of the same 10 | arguments and claims of malfeasance by defense counsel and court staff that this court considered 11 | when it decided to dismiss this action. The filing at ECF No. 77, construed as a motion to alter or 12 | amend the judgment under Rule 59(e), is therefore denied. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 DATED: December 5, 2025. oUt STATES DISTRICT JUDGE