Barrera v. Muniz

Filing 57

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 12/03/17 RECOMMENDING that petitioner's motion for a certificate of appealability 53 be construed as a Rule 59(e) motion and be denied. Motion 53 referred to Judge John A. Mendez. Objections due within 14 days. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ENRIQUE BARRERA,

12

Petitioner,

13
14

No. 2:14-cv-2260 JAM DB P

v.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

W.L. MUNIZ,

15

Respondent.

16
17

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. On June 27, 2017,

18

this court issued findings and recommendation in which the undersigned recommended denial of

19

petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (ECF No. 45.) Petitioner

20

was advised that if he wished to file an appeal, he should seek a certificate of appealability in his

21

objections to the findings and recommendations. On August 16, 2017, petitioner filed objections

22

to the findings and recommendations. (ECF No. 48.) On October 12, 2017, the district judge

23

rejected petitioner’s objections, adopted the findings and recommendations, declined to issue a

24

certificate of appealability, and denied the petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

25

On November 9, 2017, petitioner filed both a motion for a certificate of appealability in

26

this court and a notice of appeal. (ECF Nos. 51, 53.) The district judge referred the motion to

27

the undersigned magistrate judge. (ECF No. 54.) For the reasons set forth below, the court

28

////
1

1

construes petitioner’s motion as a Rule 59(e) motion to amend the judgment and recommends

2

denial of that motion.

3

Generally, once an appeal is filed, a district court no longer has jurisdiction to consider

4

motions affecting the judgment. Davis v. Yageo Corp., 481 F.3d 661, 685 (9th Cir. 2007) (citing

5

Gould v. Mut. Life Ins. Co. of N.Y., 790 F.2d 769, 772 (9th Cir.1986)). However, under Rule 4

6

of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, if a party files a notice of appeal after the entry of

7

judgment but before disposition of certain motions, including a motion to alter or amend the

8

judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) or a motion for relief from judgment under

9

Rule 60(b), then the district court retains jurisdiction to consider and decide that motion and the

10

notice of appeal becomes effective when that motion is resolved. Because petitioner filed his

11

motion within 28 days after the entry of judgment, his motion is treated as one under Rule 59(e).1

12

See Lee-Thomas v. Prince George’s County Public Schools, 666 F.3d 244, 247 n.4 (4th Cir.

13

2012).
A Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment is an “extraordinary remedy which

14
15

should be used sparingly.” Allstate Ins. Co. v. Herron, 634 F.3d 1101, 1111 (9th Cir. 2011). In

16

general, there are four grounds upon which a Rule 59(e) motion may be granted:

17

(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.

18
19
20
21

Id. (citing McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 1255 n. 1 (9th Cir. 1999) (en banc) (per

22

curiam)). Petitioner does not cite to newly discovered evidence or a change in the law. Nor does

23

petitioner meet the remaining two bases for relief under Rule 59(d).

24

////

25

1

26
27
28

Judgment was entered on October 12, 2017. (ECF No. 50.) Petitioner’s proof of service shows
that he placed his motion in the prison mail to be sent to this court on November 7, 2017. (ECF
No. 53 at 10.) Prisoner filings are deemed “filed” on the date they are provided to prison officials
for mailing. Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 270 (1988). Petitioner provided his motion to
officials for filing 26 days after entry of judgment. Accordingly, his motion falls within the time
provisions of Rule 59(e).
2

1

Petitioner argues that the court erred in summarily denying his claims without an evidentiary

2

hearing, which, he contends, justifies a certificate of appealability. (ECF No. 53 at 4.) He also

3

appears to argue, for the first time, that his trial attorney was ineffective for failing to conduct a

4

pre-trial investigation. (Id. at 5.) He makes a second new argument that the California Court of

5

Appeals determination that the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict for attempted

6

murder is an unreasonable application of the law set forth in Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U.S. 684,

7

704 (1974). (Id. at 8.) Primarily, however, petitioner reargues the merits of his claims. (Id. at 5-

8

8.)
To demonstrate “manifest error,” petitioner must show the judgment rests on an incorrect

9
10

factual assumption or clear error of law. However, new legal arguments that should have been

11

raised previously are not appropriate in a Rule 59(e) motion. Divane v. Krull Elec. Co., Inc., 194

12

F.3d 845, 850 (7th Cir. 1999). Nor is a Rule 59(e) motion an appropriate vehicle to ask the court

13

to revisit issues already addressed. Servants of Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir.

14

2000). Petitioner shows neither an incorrect factual assumption or a clear error of law. He

15

primarily does nothing more than reiterate the arguments he made in his objections to the

16

undersigned’s findings and recommendations. Petitioner does not explain his new argument that

17

the decision in Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U.S. 684 (1974) is controlling. He appears to be relying

18

simply on the Court’s statement therein that a federal court is bound by a state court’s

19

construction of its state laws except where that construction is “an obvious subterfuge to evade

20

consideration of a federal issue.” 421 U.S. at 691. For the reasons set out in the June 27, 2017

21

findings and recommendations, this court does not find any such “subterfuge” on the part of the

22

state court in this case. Further, petitioner could have, and should have, raised any argument

23

based on Mullaney previously.

24

Nor does petitioner show that a “manifest injustice” will result from this court’s denial of a

25

certificate of appealability. This district court considered, and rejected, issuance of a certificate

26

of appealability previously. (See ECF No. 49 at 2.) Petitioner presents nothing new here to

27

change that determination.

28

////
3

1
2
3

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that petitioner’s motion for a certificate of
appealability (ECF No. 53) be construed as a Rule 59(e) motion and be denied.
These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge

4

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days

5

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

6

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. The document should be captioned

7

“Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the

8

objections shall be filed and served within seven days after service of the objections. The parties

9

are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in waiver of the

10

right to appeal the district court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

11

Dated: December 3, 2017

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

DLB:9
DLB1/prisoner-habeas/barr2260.59e

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4