Marks v. Frauenheim
Filing
38
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 7/30/18 RECOMMENDING that petitioner's motion for a certificate of appealability 36 be construed as a rule 59(e) motion and be denied. Motion 36 referred to Judge John A. Mendez. Objections due within 14 days. (Plummer, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
MICHAEL MARKS,
11
12
13
14
No. 2:15-cv-0665 JAM DB P
Petitioner,
v.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
SCOTT FRAUENHEIM,
Respondent.
15
16
Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a petition for a
17
writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On August 11, 2017, this court issued findings
18
and recommendations in which the undersigned recommended denial of petitioner’s petition for
19
writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (ECF No. 31.) Petitioner was advised that if he
20
wished to file an appeal he should seek a certificate of appealability in his objections to the
21
findings and recommendations.
22
On August 20, 2017, petitioner filed objections to the findings and recommendations.
23
(ECF No. 32.) On December 19, 2017, the district judge rejected petitioner’s objections, adopted
24
the findings and recommendations, denied the petition for a writ of habeas corpus, and declined to
25
issue a certificate of appealability. (ECF No. 33.)
26
Petitioner subsequently filed a request for a certificate of appealability. (ECF No. 36.)
27
For the reasons set forth below, the court construes petitioner’s motion as a Rule 59(e) motion to
28
amend the judgment and recommends denial of that motion.
1
1
I.
Legal Standards
To the extent that petitioner’s filing constitutes a motion for reconsideration, a motion for
2
3
reconsideration is treated as a motion to alter or amend the judgement under Federal Rule of Civil
4
Procedure 59(e) if it is filed within the time limit set by Rule 59(e). United States v. Nutri-
5
cology, Inc., 982 F.2d 394, 397 (9th Cir. 1992). Otherwise, it is treated as a motion pursuant to
6
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) for relief from a judgment or order. American Ironworks
7
& Erectors, Inc. v. North American Const. Corp., 248 F.3d 892, 998-99 (9th Cir. 2001). Because
8
petitioner filed his motion within 28 days after the entry of judgment, his motion is treated as one
9
under Rule 59(e).1 See Lee-Thomas v. Prince George’s County Public Schools, 666 F.3d 244,
10
247 n.4 (4th Cir. 2012).
A Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment is an “‘extraordinary remedy which
11
12
should be used sparingly.’” Allstate Ins. Co. v. Herron, 634 F.3d 1101, 1111 (9th Cir. 2011)
13
(quoting McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 1255 n.1 (9th Cir. 1999) (en banc) (per curium)).
14
In general, there are four grounds upon which a Rule 59(e) motion may be granted:
15
(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.
16
17
18
Id. (citing McDowell, 197 F.3d at 1255 n.1). Further, Local Rule 230(j) requires that a motion
19
for reconsideration state “what new or different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which
20
did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the
21
motion,” and “why the facts or circumstances were not shown at the time of the prior motion.”
22
E.D. Cal., Local Rule 230(j)(3)-(4).
23
////
24
25
26
27
28
Judgment was entered on December 19, 2017. (ECF No. 33.) Petitioner’s proof of service
shows that he placed his motion in the prison mail to be sent to this court on December 31, 2017.
(ECF No. 36 at 6.) 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 twelve days after entry of judgment. Accordingly, his motion falls within
the time provisions of Rule 59(e).
2
1
1
II.
2
Analysis
Petitioner argues a knife allegedly used during the crime was not DNA tested and he did
3
not have a fair chance to show the jury that the victim lied. (ECF No. 36.) He claims the
4
cumulative effect of all the mistakes made resulted in a wrongful conviction. Petitioner’s motion
5
primarily reargues the merits of his claim. Petitioner does not cite to newly discovered evidence
6
or a change in the law. Nor does petitioner meet the remaining two bases for relief under Rule
7
59(d).
To demonstrate “manifest error,” petitioner must show the judgment rests on an incorrect
8
9
factual assumption or clear error of law. However, new legal arguments that should have been
10
raised previously are not appropriate in a Rule 59(e) motion. Divane v. Krull Elec. Co., Inc., 194
11
F.3d 845, 850 (7th Cir. 1999). Nor is a Rule 59(e) motion an appropriate vehicle to ask the court
12
to revisit issues already addressed. Servants of Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir.
13
2000). Petitioner shows neither an incorrect factual assumption or a clear error of law. He
14
primarily does nothing more than reiterate the arguments he made in his petition (ECF No. 8) and
15
his objections to the undersigned’s findings and recommendations (ECF No. 32.).
Petitioner also does not show that a “manifest injustice” will result from this court’s denial
16
17
of a certificate of appealability. This district court considered, and rejected, issuance of a
18
certificate of appealability previously. (See ECF No. at 33.) Petitioner’s disagreement with the
19
court’s decision and restatement of allegations and arguments previously considered and rejected
20
by the court do not warrant reconsideration of the judgment upon order adopting findings and
21
recommendations in this proceeding.
22
III.
23
24
25
Conclusion
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that petitioner’s motion for a certificate
of appealability (ECF No. 36) be construed as a Rule 59(e) motion and be denied.
These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge
26
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days
27
after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written
28
objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. The document should be captioned
3
1
“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the
2
objections shall be filed and served within seven days after service of the objections. The parties
3
are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in waiver of the
4
right to appeal the district court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
5
Dated: July 30, 2018
6
7
8
9
10
DLB:12
DLB:1/Orders/Prisoner.Habeas/mark0665.recon
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?