Jones v. Davies

Filing 30

ORDER DENYING 25 Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 6/21/2016. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
ANTHONY JONES,

11

Case No. 1:14-cv-01752-LJO-SAB-HC

Petitioner,

12

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ALTER
OR AMEND THE JUDGMENT

v.

13

(ECF No. 25)
DAVID DAVIES,

14

Respondent.

15
16

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

17

18 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On May 2, 2016, the Court denied the petition and entered
19 judgment. (ECF Nos. 23, 24). On June 3, 2016, the Court received the instant motion to alter or
20 amend the judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59. (ECF No. 25).
Rule 59(e) provides that “[a] motion to alter or amend a judgment must be filed no later

21

22 than 28 days after the entry of the judgment.” Petitioner constructively filed the instant motion
1
23 on May 27, 2016, within twenty-eight days of the entry of judgment, and so the Court considers

24 Petitioner’s motion under Rule 59(e). The Ninth Circuit has recognized that altering or amending
25 a judgment under Rule 59(e) is an “extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of
26
1

Pursuant to the prison mailbox rule, “a legal document is deemed filed on the date a petitioner delivers it to the

27 prison authorities for filing by mail.” Lott v. Mueller, 304 F.3d 918, 921 (9th Cir.2002) (citing Houston v. Lack, 487
U.S. 266, 270–71 (1988)). Here, Petitioner delivered the motion to the prison authorities for mailing on May 27,

28 2016. (ECF No. 25 at 8).

1

1 finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d
2 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting 12 James Wm. Moore et al.,
3 Moore’s Federal Practice § 59.30[4] (3d ed. 2000)). The Ninth Circuit has held:
4

In general, there are four basic grounds upon which a Rule 59(e)
motion may be granted: (1) if such motion is necessary to correct
manifest errors of law or fact upon which the judgment rests; (2) if
such motion is necessary to present newly discovered or previously
unavailable evidence; (3) if such motion is necessary to prevent
manifest injustice; or (4) if the amendment is justified by an
intervening change in controlling law.

5
6
7

8 Allstate Ins. Co. v. Herron, 634 F.3d 1101, 1111 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing McDowell v. Calderon,
9 197 F.3d 1253, 1255 n.1 (9th Cir. 1999) (en banc) (per curiam)).
Petitioner contends that altering or amending the judgment is warranted because there has

10

11 been an intervening change in controlling law, citing to Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct.
12 718 (2016). Petitioner argues that in denying the petition, the Court declined to retroactively
13 extend the benefits of Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012), to Petitioner. (ECF No. 25 at
14 4).2 In Montgomery, the Supreme Court held that Miller’s prohibition on mandatory life without
15 parole for juvenile offenders announced a new substantive rule of constitutional law with
16 retroactive effect. 136 S. Ct. at 736. Montgomery was decided on January 25, 2016, before the
17 findings and recommendation, order denying the petition, and judgment were issued. Thus, it is
18 not an intervening change in controlling law. Further, the Court considered Miller and
19 determined that the California state court’s decision was not contrary to, or an unreasonable
20 application of, Miller. Accordingly, the Court finds that relief under Rule 59(e) is not warranted
21 based on an intervening change in controlling law.
Petitioner also contends that the motion is necessary to correct manifest errors of law and

22

23 to prevent manifest injustice with respect to Petitioner’s claims regarding the trial court’s failure
24 to sever his trial, failure to ascertain whether the ill juror was subject to any undue pressure, and
25 decision to restrict the defense’s post-trial juror access. (ECF No. 25 at 1–2, 5–7). These
26 arguments were already raised in Petitioner’s objections to the findings and recommendation,
27 which the Court reviewed and considered when it conducted a de novo review of the case.
28

2

Page numbers refer to the ECF page numbers stamped at the top of the page.

2

1 Accordingly, the Court finds that relief under Rule 59(e) is not warranted based on Petitioner’s
2 contentions of manifest errors of law and injustice.
3

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion to alter or amend the

4 judgment is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
5
6

Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____

June 21, 2016

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3