Martinez v. Cate

Filing 35

ORDER DENYING 34 Motion for Reconsideration signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 6/29/2015. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

Case No. 1:11-cv-00572 AWI MJS (HC)
DANIEL J. MARTINEZ,

ORDER
DENYING
RECONSIDERATION
Petitioner,

9
10

MOTION

FOR

(Doc. 34)

v.

11
12

MATTHEW CATE,

13

Respondent.

14
15
Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas

16
17

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
On March 27, 2015, the undersigned denied the petition, issued a limited

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

certificate of appealability as to claim three, and declined to issue a certificate of
appealability for the remaining claims. On April 20, 2015, Petitioner filed a motion to
alter or amend the judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e).
I.

LEGAL STANDARD
Relief under Rule 59(e) is appropriate when the district court is presented with

newly discovered evidence, the district court committed clear error, or a change in
controlling law intervenes. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc.,
5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). To avoid being frivolous, such a motion must provide
a valid ground for reconsideration. See MGIC Indem. Corp. v. Weisman, 803 F.2d 500,
505 (9th Cir. 1986). A motion to alter or amend a judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e) "must

1

1

be filed no later than 28 days after the entry of the judgment." Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e).

2

Petitioner filed the motion 12 days after the judgment was filed. Accordingly, the motion

3

is timely.

4

II.

DISCUSSION

5

In his motion for reconsideration, Petitioner asserts that the Court erred in denying

6

claims three, six, and seven of the petition. However, Petitioner does not set forth any

7

arguments or evidence that have not already been considered by this Court. Petitioner

8

asserts that the Court committed error by determining that the state court's denial of the

9

claims was reasonable. Petitioner argues that the Court found that it was possible that

10

the evidence indicated there was further interrogation after the invocation of Petitioner's

11

Miranda rights, but unreasonably provided deference to the state court decision denying

12

the claim. Likewise, Petitioner contends that the Court incorrectly determined that the

13

statements by the prosecutor implicating that Petitioner was the party that tagged the

14

street in front of the victim's house was not prosecutorial misconduct. Finally, Petitioner

15

argues that the Court improperly denied his claim that instructional error violated his right

16

to a fair trial. Petitioner presented similar arguments in his Petition, which the Court,

17

upon review, found insufficient to warrant relief.

18

reconsideration fare no better. Petitioner has not presented newly discovered evidence,

19

shown that the district court committed clear error, or that a change in controlling law to

20

warrant amending or altering the judgment.

21

III.

22
23

His contentions in his motion for

ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner's motion to alter or amend the judgment

(Doc. 34) is DENIED.

24
25
26

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 29, 2015
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

27
28
2