McCarthy v. Frauenheim

Filing 40

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. DENYING 39 REQUEST LEAVE TO FILE A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/27/2020)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

JAMES T MCCARTHY,

8

Petitioner,

9

v.

10

CRAIG KOENIG,

ORDER DENYING REQUEST LEAVE
TO FILE A MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION
Re: Dkt. No. 39

Respondent.

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 16-cv-06820-HSG

12
Petitioner, a California state prisoner, has filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus

13
14

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging the validity of a judgment obtained against him in state

15

court. The respondent has filed an answer to the amended petition, and this matter is fully briefed.

16

On March 6, 2020, the Court denied petitioner’s request for leave to file a motion seeking a

17

judgment declaring that the prosecution committed misconduct with respect to the November 15,

18

2012 preliminary hearing. Dkt. No. 38. Now pending before the Court is petitioner’s request that

19

the Court reconsider its denial, which the Court construes as a request for leave to file a motion for

20

reconsideration.1 Dkt. No. 39. Petitioner’s request for leave to file a motion for reconsideration is

21

denied.

22

Pursuant to Local Rule 7-9(b), a party seeking reconsideration must specifically show:

23

(1) that at the time of the motion for leave, a material difference in fact or law exists from that

24

which was presented to the court before entry of the interlocutory order for which the

25

reconsideration is sought, and that in the exercise of reasonable diligence the party applying for

26

reconsideration did not know such fact or law at the time of the interlocutory order; or (2) the

27
28

1

Pursuant to Local Rule 7-9, before the entry of judgment, parties must obtain leave of Court to
file a motion for reconsideration. N.D. Cal. L. R. 7-9.

emergence of new material facts or a change of law occurring after the time of such order; or (3) a

2

manifest failure by the court to consider material facts which were presented to the court before

3

such interlocutory order. See Civil L.R. 7-9(b). Petitioner has not shown that any of these three

4

circumstances exist. Petitioner argues that his request for declaratory judgment is authorized by

5

Fed. R. Civ. P. 57, which provides that the existence of another adequate remedy does not

6

preclude a declaratory judgment that is otherwise appropriate. Petitioner argues that the Court

7

misunderstood his request and that his request for declaratory judgment is not an attempt to

8

circumvent the habeas corpus procedure but only “to establish the elements of the controversy.”

9

See generally Dkt. No. 39. As explained in the Court’s March 6, 2020 order, this Court is without

10

authority to entertain a request for declaratory judgment with respect to a state court conviction. A

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

1

state prisoner may not seek any kind of declaratory judgment or injunctive relief regarding a

12

challenge to his state conviction apart from filing an application for a writ of habeas corpus under

13

28 U.S.C. § 2254. See Calderon v. Ashmus, 523 U.S. 740, 742–49 (1998); see also United States

14

v. Gutierrez, 116 F.3d 412, 415 (9th Cir. 1997). Generally speaking, Fed. R. Civ. P. 57 applies to

15

civil proceedings in the United States district courts, and not to petitions for a writ of habeas

16

corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Even if Fed. R. Civ. P. 57 applied to 28 U.S.C. § 2254

17

proceedings, it does not require this Court to entertain a declaratory judgment, as petitioner argues,

18

even if the petitioner only intends for the declaratory judgment to apply to an underlying issue in

19

the habeas petition.

20
21

Petitioner’s request for leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s March 6,
2020 order is DENIED.

22

This order terminates Dkt. No. 39.

23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24
25
26

Dated: 3/27/2020
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

27
28
2