(PC) Stephens v. Felder

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 JIMMIE EARL STEPHENS, No. 2:24-cv-01713 DJC CSK P 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. ORDER 13 M. FELDER, 14 Defendant. 15 16 On September 14, 2024, the Court issued an order adopting the Findings and 17 Recommendations of Magistrate Judge Chi Soo Kim and denied Plaintiff’s Motion to 18 Proceed In Forma Pauperis. (ECF No. 13.) The Court ordered Plaintiff to pay the 19 filing fee in full. (Id.) Plaintiff has now filed a document in which Plaintiff seeks to alter 20 or amend a judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). 21 “In general, there are four basic grounds upon which a Rule 59(e) motion may 22 be granted: (1) if such motion is necessary to correct manifest errors of law or fact 23 upon which the judgment rests; (2) if such motion is necessary to present newly 24 discovered or previously unavailable evidence; (3) if such motion is necessary to 25 prevent manifest injustice; or (4) if the amendment is justified by an intervening 26 change in controlling law.” Allstate Ins. v. Herron, 634 F.3d 1101, 1111 (9th Cir. 2011). 27 Plaintiff has not identified any basis for the Court to alter judgment on these grounds. 28 To the extent Plaintiff intended to seek reconsideration of the Court’s order under 1 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), Plaintiff has also not shown that reconsideration 2 | of the Court's prior order is justified for the reasons described in that rule. 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion (ECF No. 14) is 4 | DENIED. This matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for all further 5 | proceedings. 6 j IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 | Dated: _ October 28, 2024 “Dane A CoO □□□□ Hon. Daniel alabretta ? UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28