(HC) Warrior v. California Republic

Filing 16

ORDER DENYING 15 Plaintiff's Objections to the Order Dated August 27, 2024, Construed as a Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e), signed by District Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on September 24, 2024. (Rivera, O)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15
16

MARCELLUS GREENE aka
MARVELLOUS AFRIKAN WARRIOR1,

)
)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
)
v.
)
BRANDON PRICE, Executive Director of the )
)
Dept’ of State Hospitals,
)
)
Respondent.
)

Case No.: 1: 22-cv-01639 JLT CDB
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS
TO THE ORDER DATED AUGUST 27, 2024,
CONSTRUED AS A MOTION TO ALTER OR
AMEND JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO FEDERAL
RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 59(e)
(Doc. 15)

17
Petitioner is detained in Coalinga State Hospital, and he filed a petition of habeas corpus

18
19

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The Court entered judgment in this matter on August 28, 2024,

20

following the Court’s dismissal for Petitioner’s failure to prosecute, failure to obey the Court’s order,

21

and failure to state a claim on August 27, 2024. (Docs. 13, 14.) Following the dismissal of the petition,

22

Petitioner filed objections, referencing the Court’s denial of his certificate of appealability on August

23

27, 2024. (Doc. 15 at 1.) Petitioner seems to assert his innocence for the underlying conviction, and his

24

civil commitment to the state hospital. (Id. at 2-3.) Because the objections were filed within 28 days of

25
26
27
28

Petitioner identified himself as “Marvellous Afrikan Warrior” in the caption of his petition, but also indicated
the petition was “on behalf of Marcellus Alexander Greene Sr, who is right here.” (See Doc. 1 at 1, 8 [emphasis
omitted].) The California Court of Appeals previously observed that at times, Marcellus Greene referred to
himself as “Marvellous Afrikan Warrior,” “King Marcellus” and “Afrikan Warrior.” See People v. Greene, No.
B315882, 2022 WL 2826299, at **2, 4 (Cal. App. Ct. July 20, 2022). For the sake of clarity, the Court
indicates both Petitioner’s legal name and preferred name in the caption.
1

1

1

the final judgment, the Court construes the document as a motion as made pursuant to Federal Rule of

2

Civil Procedure 59(e) to modify the judgment.

3

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) permits a party to move a court to alter or amend its

4

judgment. “A district court may grant a Rule 59(e) motion if it is presented with newly discovered

5

evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.” Wood v.

6

Ryan, 759 F.3d 1117, 1121 (9th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks, citation omitted) (emphasis in

7

original). Reconsideration is an “extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of finality

8

and conservation of judicial resources.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th

9

Cir. 2000). Ultimately, whether to grant or deny a motion for reconsideration is in the “sound

10

discretion” of the district court. Navajo Nation v. Norris, 331 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th Cir. 2003)

11

(citing Kona, 229 F.3d at 883).

12

Petitioner does not dispute the underlying facts and analysis concerning his failure to prosecute

13

this action and failure to comply with the Court’s order to file an amended petition, which formed the

14

basis of the Court’s order for terminating sanctions. For this reason, the Court finds no basis to reopen

15

the action or vacate the entry of judgment. As to the denial of a certificate of appealability, Petitioner

16

fails to present any newly discovered evidence, show the Court committed a clear error in evaluating

17

whether such a certificate is appropriate, or argue an intervening change in controlling law necessitates

18

an amendment of the Court’s order. See Wood, 759 F.3d at 1121. Petitioner’s general disagreement

19

with the denial of a certificate of appealability is insufficient to support the relief requested. Cromer v.

20

Songer, 2016 WL 3351408, *1 (E.D. Cal. June 15, 2016) (disagreement with the Court’s decision is

21

insufficient to warrant reconsideration).

22
23

Based upon the foregoing, the Court ORDERS: Petitioner’s objections, construed as motion
under Rule 59(e) to alter or amend judgment (Doc. 15) is DENIED

24
25
26

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

September 24, 2024

27
28
2