Najera v. Scrivner

Filing 33

ORDER DENYING Petitioner's Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment 32 , signed by District Judge John A. Houston on 9/28/09. (Hellings, J)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA GAMALIEL NAJERA, v. Plaintiff, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil No. 06CV336 JAH(TAG) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT A.SCRIVNER, Warden, Defendant. On May 6, 2009, this Court issued an order denying plaintiff's petition for writ of habeas corpus. Doc. 30. In that order, this Court erroneously stated that plaintiff did not file a traverse to defendant's answer. On May 18, 2009, plaintiff filed a motion to alter or amend judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), stating the Court's error is one "of fact and law" and "created an erroneous prejudicial ruling in where (sic) petitioner did not have an opportunity to fully litigate his habeas corpus ground." Doc. 32 at 1-2. "A motion for reconsideration under Rule 59(e) should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law." McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 1255 (9th Cir. 1999)(citing 389 Orange St. Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999). The Court fully considered the facts and arguments in plaintiff's amended petition 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 before rendering its May 6, 2009 decision. Upon review, plaintiff's traverse does not contain any additional facts or arguments that makes this Court believe its earlier decision was in error. Accordingly, plaintiff's motion to amend or alter judgment is DENIED. DATED: September 28, 2009 JOHN A. HOUSTON United States District Judge 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?