Haywood v. San Diego, CA Sheriff et al

Filing 10

ORDER Denying 7 Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration. Having reviewed its previous ruling, the Court is satisfied that it committed no error. Petitioner has not carried her burden under Rule 59(e) to demonstrate otherwise. Accordingly, the Court denies Petitioner's motion for reconsideration. Signed by Judge Michael M. Anello on 10/10/2019. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(rmc)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Case No. 19cv1784 - MMA (RBB) ERICA D. HAYWOOD, Petitioner, 12 13 v. 14 ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION SAN DIEGO SHERIFF, et al., Respondents. 15 [Doc. No. 7] 16 On September 16, 2019, Petitioner Erica D. Haywood (“Petitioner”) filed a petition 17 18 for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See Doc. No. 1. On September 19 24, 2019, the Court denied Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and 20 dismissed the petition without prejudice. See Doc. No. 3. Petitioner now moves the 21 Court to reconsider its order.1 See Doc. No. 7. For the reasons set forth below, the Court 22 DENIES Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration. LEGAL STANDARD 23 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), district courts have the power to 24 25 26 27 28 reconsider a previous ruling or entry of judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). A Rule 59(e)                                                 1 Petitioner contemporaneously filed a notice of appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. See Doc. No. 8. 1 19cv1784 - MMA (RBB) 1 motion seeks “a substantive change of mind by the court.” Tripati v. Henman, 845 F.2d 2 205, 205 (9th Cir. 1988). Rule 59(e) provides an “extraordinary remedy” and, in the 3 interest of finality and conservation of judicial resources, such a motion should not be 4 granted absent highly unusual circumstances. Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 5 (9th Cir. 2003); McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 1255 (9th Cir. 1999). Rule 59(e) 6 “may not be used to relitigate old matters, or to raise arguments or present evidence that 7 could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment.” Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 8 U.S. 471, 485 n.5 (2008) (quoting 11 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and 9 Procedure § 2810.1, pp. 127–28 (2d ed.1995)). 10 Under Rule 59(e), it is appropriate to alter or amend a previous ruling or judgment 11 if “(1) the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) the district court 12 committed clear error or made an initial decision that was manifestly unjust, or (3) there 13 is an intervening change in controlling law.” United Nat. Ins. Co. v. Spectrum 14 Worldwide, Inc., 555 F.3d 772, 780 (9th Cir. 2009). To carry the burden of proof, a 15 moving party seeking reconsideration must show more than a disagreement with the 16 Court’s decision or a recapitulation of the cases and arguments previously considered by 17 the court. See United States v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F. Supp. 2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. 18 Cal. 2001). 19 20 DISCUSSION To the extent the Court can decipher the partially illegible motion, the Court finds 21 that Petitioner has not met her burden to attain relief under the extraordinary remedy of 22 Rule 59(e). Petitioner fails to present the Court with new evidence, demonstrate that the 23 Court committed clear error, or point the Court to a change in law. Rather, Petitioner 24 merely disagrees with the Court’s order and restates her previous claims. Such argument 25 is insufficient to meet the heavy burden required by Rule 59(e). As previously noted, 26 27 28 2 19cv1784 - MMA (RBB) 1 Petitioner’s § 2254 petition is barred by the abstention doctrine and should have been 2 brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983.2 See Doc. No. 3. 3 CONCLUSION 4 Having reviewed its previous ruling, the Court is satisfied that it committed no 5 error. Petitioner has not carried her burden under Rule 59(e) to demonstrate otherwise. 6 Accordingly, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 9 Dated: October 10, 2019 10 ________________________________________ HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO United States District Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28                                                 2 In fact, Petitioner filed a § 1983 action in this District on October 9, 2019. See Complaint, Haywood v. U.C. San Diego et al. (S.D. Cal. 2019) (No. 3:19-cv-1955 MMA (BGS)). 3 19cv1784 - MMA (RBB)

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?