Liggins v. McDonald

Filing 45

ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. on 3/11/2013 DENYING 43 Motion for Reconsideration. (Michel, G)

1
2
3
4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

PHILLIP V. LIGGINS,
Petitioner,

8
9

v.

10

P.D. BRAZELTON,

11

Respondent.
________________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:09-cv-01777-GEB-EFB
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S
REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

12
13

On

December

13,

2012,

Petitioner

filed

a

“Request

for

14

Reconsideration of this Court’s November 28[,] 2012 Order Denying Habeas

15

Corpus Relief,” in which he requests “this court . . . recind [sic] its

16

order at issue, and grant habeas corpus relief.” (Pet’r’s Req. for

17

Recons. 1:23-24, ECF No. 43.) In essence, Petitioner argues the Court

18

“inadvertently

19

Batson/Wheeler claims, in denying habeas corpus relief. (Id. at 3:3-4.)

overlooked”

points

of

law

applicable

to

his

20

Respondent opposes Petitioner’s request, arguing it “attacks

21

this Court’s ruling on the merits[, and a]s such it should be considered

22

a second or successive [habeas] petition and be dismissed.” (Resp’t’s

23

Opp’n 3:14-15, ECF No. 44.) Respondent further argues: “[t]o the extent

24

that Petitioner’s [request] is not considered a second or successive

25

petition, Respondent submits that it must be denied.” (Id. at 3:16-17.)

26

Respondent argues:

27
28

Although Petitioner makes a general argument that
this Court overlooked applicable law, he does
nothing to specifically address this Court’s order.
The order itself clearly shows that the District
1

1

Judge rejected the Magistrate Judge’s findings and
recommendation as to the Batson claim after
conducting a de novo review of the case and
carefully reviewing the entire file. The fact that
Petitioner disagrees with the District Judge’s
decision is not a ground for relief . . . .

2
3
4
5

(Id. at 3:17-22 (internal citation omitted).)

6

Whether and/or when a Rule 59(e) motion for reconsideration

7

may constitute a second or successive habeas corpus application under 28

8

U.S.C. § 2244 need not be decided since Petitioner has not made an

9

adequate showing on the merits of his request for reconsideration.

10

Since Petitioner’s request for reconsideration was made within

11

twenty-eight days of entry of judgment, it “is treated as a motion to

12

alter or amend judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure [(“Rule”)]

13

59(e)[,]” rather than a “motion for relief from a judgment or order”

14

under Rule 60(b). Am. Ironworks & Erectors, Inc. v. N. Am. Constr.

15

Corp., 248 F.3d 892, 898-99 (9th Cir. 2001) (applying Rule 59(e)’s ten

16

day deadline before its 2009 amendment to twenty-eight days) (citation

17

omitted).

18

22

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.

23

Allstate Ins. Co. v. Herron, 634 F.3d 1101, 1111 (9th Cir. 2011).

24

However, “amending a judgment after its entry [is] an extraordinary

25

remedy which should be used sparingly.” Id. (internal quotation marks

26

omitted). Further, “[a] reconsideration motion is properly denied where

27

it merely presents arguments previously raised . . . .” Lopes v. Vieria,

28

No. 1:06-cv-01243 OWW SMS, 2011 WL 3568600, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 12,

19
20
21

2

1

2011) (citing Blacklund v. Barnhart, 778 F.2d 1386, 1388 (9th Cir.

2

1985)).

3

Plaintiff has not made an adequate showing under any of the

4

four basic grounds for reconsideration referenced above; rather, he

5

“simply repeats arguments raised” raised in his Petition and Traverse

6

(ECF Nos. 1, 15). Id. For the stated reasons, Plaintiff’s request for

7

reconsideration is DENIED.

8

Dated:

March 11, 2013

9
10
11

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.
Senior United States District Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3