Williams v. People of the State of California

Filing 55

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 3/6/2025 RECOMMENDING petitioner's 53 motion for reconsideration be denied. Referred to Judge Troy L. Nunley. Objections to F&R due within 14 days. (Deputy Clerk KLY)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

HENRY DON WILLIAMS,

12

Petitioner,

13

v.

14

No. 2:17-cv-2627 TLN AC P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA,

15

Respondent.

16
17
18

By order filed June 14, 2024, this action was dismissed and the district judge declined to

19

issue a certificate of appealability. ECF No. 51. Judgment was entered the same day. ECF No.

20

52. On July 10, 2024,1 petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the denial of a certificate

21

of appealability. ECF No. 53. The motion was later referred to the undersigned. ECF No. 54.

22

A motion for reconsideration or relief from a judgment is appropriately brought under

23

either Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Fuller v. M.G. Jewelry,

24

950 F.2d 1437, 1442 (9th Cir. 1991) (citing Taylor v. Knapp, 871 F.2d 803, 805 (9th Cir. 1989)).

25

The motion “is treated as a motion to alter or amend judgment under Federal Rule of Civil

26

Procedure 59(e) if it is filed [within the time provided by that Rule]. Otherwise, it is treated as a

27
28

1

Since petitioner is a prisoner proceeding pro se, he is afforded the benefit of the prison mailbox
rule. See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988).
1

1

Rule 60(b) motion for relief from a judgment or order.” Am. Ironworks & Erectors, Inc. v. N.

2

Am. Constr. Corp., 248 F.3d 892, 898-99 (9th Cir. 2001) (internal citations omitted). Since

3

petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was filed within twenty-eight days of the entry of

4

judgment, the motion is considered under Rule 59(e).

5

“Under Rule 59(e), a motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly

6

unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence,

7

committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.” 389 Orange St.

8

Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999) (citation omitted). Further, Local Rule

9

230(j) requires that a motion for reconsideration state “what new or different facts or

10

circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion,

11

or what other grounds exist for the motion; and . . . why the facts or circumstances were not

12

shown at the time of the prior motion.” L.R. 230(j)(3)-(4).

13

Although petitioner indicates his motion is based on new evidence (ECF No. 53 at 1, 10),

14

the undersigned cannot identify any new evidence presented with the motion (id. at 12-38

15

(supporting evidence)). Petitioner also does not identify any intervening change in controlling

16

law. Instead, he appears to argue the denial of a certificate of appealability constituted clear error

17

because he has shown that the issues are debatable among reasonable jurists and his claims

18

“facially alleged violations of constitutional rights,” thereby entitling him to a certificate of

19

appealability. ECF No. 53 at 9-10.

20

“A certificate of appealability may issue . . . only if the applicant has made a substantial

21

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). “To meet this standard,

22

the petitioner must demonstrate that the issues are debatable among jurists of reason; that a court

23

could resolve the issues in a different manner; or that the questions are adequate to deserve

24

encouragement to proceed further.” Martinez v. Shinn, 33 F.4th 1254, 1261 (9th Cir. 2022)

25

(quotation marks and citation omitted). Where a claim is dismissed on procedural grounds, the

26

court must first decide “whether ‘jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition

27

states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right.’ Second, the court must decide whether

28

‘jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural
2

1

ruling.’” Lambright v. Stewart, 220 F.3d 1022, 1026 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel,

2

529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). Where a claim is dismissed on procedural grounds, the court takes “a

3

‘quick look’ at the face of the complaint to determine whether the petitioner has ‘facially

4

allege[d] the denial of a constitutional right.’” Id. (quoting Jefferson v. Welborn, 222 F.3d 286,

5

289 (7th Cir. 2000)).

6

In this case, petitioner’s juror misconduct claim was denied on the merits, while his

7

prosecutorial misconduct claim was denied on the ground that this court lacks jurisdiction over it.

8

ECF No. 49 at 7-18 (findings and recommendations); ECF No. 51 (adopting findings and

9

recommendations in full). The motion for reconsideration appears to focus largely on the

10

prosecutorial misconduct claim. ECF No. 53 at 3, 6-7, 9-10. However, even if the court assumes

11

petitioner has facially alleged the denial of a constitutional right, he has not shown that this

12

court’s determination that it lacked jurisdiction was debatable among reasonable jurists.2 As to

13

the juror misconduct claim, petitioner makes only a conclusory assertion that he is entitled to a

14

certificate of appealability on this claim has not shown that the issue is debatable among jurists of

15

reason, that the court could resolve the issues differently, or that the questions are adequate to

16

proceed. Id. at 1, 9. In denying the claim, the court found that petitioner had “not identified any

17

way in which the rejection of his claim [was] objectively unreasonable in light of clearly

18

established federal law” and that “the presumption of correctness [was] not rebutted as to the

19

superior court’s finding that there was no juror misconduct.” ECF No. 49 at 14-15 (findings and

20

recommendations); ECF No. 51 (adopting findings and recommendations in full).

21

For these reasons, the undersigned finds that petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the

22

denial of a certificate of appealability was in error and the motion for reconsideration should be

23

denied.

24
25

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that petitioner’s motion for
reconsideration (ECF No. 53) be DENIED.

26
27
28

2

The court determined that it lacked jurisdiction because petitioner was alleging misconduct
related to a state habeas proceeding. ECF No. 49 at 17-18 (findings and recommendations); ECF
No. 51 (adopting findings and recommendations in full).
3

1

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

objections shall be filed and served within ten days after service of the objections. Due to

7

exigencies in the court’s calendar, no extensions of time will be granted.3 The parties are

8

advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the

9

District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

10

DATED: March 6, 2025

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3

Petitioner is informed that in order to obtain the district judge’s independent review and
preserve issues for appeal, he need only identify the findings and recommendations to which he
objects. There is no need to reproduce his arguments on the issues.
4