Brown v. Paramo

Filing 22

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND THE JUDGMENT by Judge James Donato. (lrcS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/2/2018)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

MATTHEW AARON BROWN,
Petitioner,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 17-cv-03948-JD

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
ALTER OR AMEND THE
JUDGMENT

v.
PARAMO,
Respondent.

Re: Dkt. No. 21

12
13

Petitioner, a state prisoner, filed a pro se habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 that

14

was denied on the merits. Petitioner has filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment pursuant to

15

Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e).

16
17
18

A motion to alter or amend judgment under Rule 59 must be made no later than twentyeight days after entry of judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). A Rule 59(e) motion “‘should not
be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly

19
20
21
22

discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the law.’”
McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 1255 (9th Cir. 1999) (citation omitted) (en banc).
Evidence is not newly discovered for purposes of a Rule 59(e) motion if it was available

23

prior to the district court’s ruling. See Ybarra v. McDaniel, 656 F.3d 984, 998 (9th Cir. 2011)

24

(affirming district court’s denial of habeas petitioner’s motion for reconsideration where

25

petitioner’s evidence of exhaustion was not “newly discovered” because petitioner was aware of

26
27
28

such evidence almost one year prior to the district court’s denial of the petition).

1

Assuming that this motion is timely, petitioner is not entitled to relief. Petitioner seeks to

2

amend the judgment to bring an entirely new claim in this habeas petition that was already denied

3

on the merits. Petitioner states he only recently became aware of the factual predicate of the new

4

claim, but he provides no specific information to warrant reopening this case and has not shown

5
6

that any evidence is newly discovered. His arguments that he has shown cause and prejudice for
procedural default and he is entitled to equitable tolling do not affect this motion to alter or amend.

7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

To the extent he seeks to bring a successive petition he must first obtain permission from the Ninth
Circuit. The motion to alter or amend the judgment (Docket No. 21) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 2, 2018

12
13
JAMES DONATO
United States District Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

MATTHEW AARON BROWN,

Case No. 17-cv-03948-JD

Plaintiff,
5
v.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

6
7

PARAMO,
Defendant.

8
9
10

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S.
District Court, Northern District of California.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15

That on November 2, 2018, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by
placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by
depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery
receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

16
17
18

Matthew Aaron Brown ID: AW-1636
R.J. Donovan Correctional Facility D-19-127
480 Alta Rd.
San Diego, CA 92179

19
20
21

Dated: November 2, 2018

22
23

Susan Y. Soong
Clerk, United States District Court

24
25
26
27

By:________________________
LISA R. CLARK, Deputy Clerk to the
Honorable JAMES DONATO

28
3