Khan v. Lopez

Filing 26

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 25 (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 9/3/2013)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

ADNAN KHAN,

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12

No. C 10-3949 SI

Petitioner,

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION

v.
RAUL LOPEZ, Warden
Respondent.

/

13
14

Adnan Khan filed an action seeking a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . On

15

August 5, 2013, the Court denied the petition and denied a certificate of appealability, finding that

16

petitioner had failed to demonstrate that the state court’s decision rejecting his claims was contrary to,

17

or an unreasonable application of, clearly established Supreme Court precedent. See Docket No. 23

18

(“Order”). Currently before the Court is Khan’s motion for reconsideration of the Order. For the

19

reasons discussed below, the Court DENIES petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.

20
21

LEGAL STANDARD

22

“Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with newly discovered

23

evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an

24

intervening change in controlling law.” School Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th

25

Cir. 1993). Reconsideration should be used conservatively, because it is an “extraordinary remedy, to

26

be used sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Carroll v.

27

Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting 12 James Wm. Moore et al., Moore’s Federal

28

Practice § 59.30[4] (3d ed. 2000)). A motion for reconsideration may not be used to present arguments

1

that were presented initially or “reasonably could have been raised” during the initial motion. Id. The

2

district court has discretion to deny a motion for reconsideration. Kona Enterprises, Inc. v. Estate of

3

Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 883 (9th Cir. 2000).

4

Civil Local Rule 7-9 requires that parties request leave of the court to file a motion for

5

reconsideration. Movants are prohibited from repeating any argument made previously, and must show

6

a material difference or an intervening change in the facts or the law, or a manifest failure by the court

7

to consider dispositive facts or legal arguments. Civ. L.R. 7-9.

8
9

DISCUSSION

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

As an initial matter, the Court notes that Khan failed to comply with Civil Local Rule 7-9, and

11

request the Court for leave to file a motion for reconsideration. However, even if the motion were

12

properly before the Court, it must be denied. Petitioner has failed to make any showing that there has

13

been newly discovered evidence, a clear error by the Court, or an intervening change in controlling law.

14

Khan argues (1) that the Court failed to decide his central claim that the trial court’s jury

15

instructions and restrictions on his arguments violated his constitutional right to present a defense; and

16

(2) that the trial court failed to decide his claim that the court’s jury instructions erroneously described

17

an element of the offense. Motion for Reconsideration (“Motion”) at 2, 5.

18

Petitioner’s arguments misconstrue the court’s role on habeas review, which is not to reexamine

19

state court determinations on state law questions, but to decide whether the state court unreasonably

20

applied clearly established Supreme Court authority in adjudicating his claims. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).

21

There is no clearly established federal law providing that the trial court’s discretionary decision to

22

exclude evidence from a criminal trial violates a defendant’s right to present a defense, nor did the state

23

appellate court unreasonably determine that the trial court properly instructed the jury on the elements

24

of felony murder. As discussed in the Court’s Order, the trial court’s exclusion of evidence and its

25

instructions to the jury are matters of state law, and the state appellate court’s rejection of these claims

26

did not involve an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent. Order 8-14

27

Petitioner’s motion presents no newly-discovered evidence, does not demonstrate that the court

28

committed clear error or that its decision was manifestly unjust, nor does it show that there was an
2

1

intervening change in the controlling law.

2

For the foregoing reasons, petitioner’s motion for

reconsideration is DENIED.

3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5
6

Dated: September 3, 2013

SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3