(PC) Kishor v. Jillian

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Chandra Kishor, No. 2:23-cv-01584-KJM-JDP 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. 14 Parvina Ben Jillian, et al., 1S Defendants. 16 17 This court previously adopted the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation to dismiss this pro 18 | se civil rights action as frivolous, without leave to amend. See F&Rs, ECF No. 20, adopted, ECF 19 | No. 26. A few days after judgment was entered, plaintiff filed the pending motion at ECF No. 28, 20 | as well as further objections to the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations, ECF 21 | No. 29. The court construes these filings as a request to alter or amend the judgment under 22 | Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). See Am. Ironworks & Erectors, Inc. v. N. Am. Constr. 23 | Corp., 248 F.3d 892, 898-99 (9th Cir. 2001) (a motion for reconsideration is construed as a 24 | Rule 59(e) motion if filed by the deadline within that rule and otherwise is construed as a 25 | Rule 60(b) motion). 26 Plaintiff identifies no errors of fact or law in the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 27 | Recommendations or in this court’s order; nor does plaintiff identify changes in the law or 28 | evidence or other unusual circumstances justifying relief. See 389 Orange St. Partners □□□ Arnold,

1 | 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999) (“Under Rule 59(e), a motion for reconsideration should not be 2 | granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly 3 | discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling 4 | law.”). The court therefore denies the requests for relief in ECF Nos. 28 and 29. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 DATED: December 12, 2024. ot 7 a5 J WS STATES DISTRICT JUDGE