Estrada v. Napolitano et al

Filing 8

ORDER denying 7 Motion for District Judge to Reconsider Order re 6 Clerk's Judgment and 5 Local Rule 41-1 Order of Dismissal. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 7/30/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DKJ)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

10
11
GONZALO ESTRADA,
12
13
14
15
16

)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
vs.
)
)
JANET NAPOLITANO, et al.,
)
)
Respondents.
)
____________________________________/

Case No. 2:11-cv-01528-JCM-GWF
ORDER

17
This closed action is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241,
18
by a prisoner represented by counsel. By order filed November 4, 2013, the Court dismissed this
19
action with prejudice. (ECF No. 5). Judgment was entered on November 5, 2013. (ECF No. 6).
20
Petitioner has filed a motion for reconsideration. (ECF No. 7). Where a ruling has resulted
21
in final judgment or order, a motion for reconsideration may be construed either as a motion to alter
22
or amend judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), or as a motion for relief from
23
judgment pursuant to Federal Rule 60(b). School Dist. No. 1J Multnomah County v. AC&S, Inc., 5
24

F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993), cert. denied 512 U.S. 1236 (1994). Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) the

25
court may relieve a party from a final judgment or order for the following reasons:
26

1
2
3
4
5
6

(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly
discovered evidence, that, with reasonable diligence, could not have
been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3)
fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic),
misrepresentation, or other misconduct by an opposing party; (4) the
judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released or
discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or
vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or (6) any
other reason that justifies relief.
A “habeas petitioner may move for relief from the denial of habeas under Rule 60(b) so long

7

as the motion is not the equivalent of a successive petition.” Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 745

8

(9th Cir. 2008) (citing Gonzales v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 535-36 (2005)). Mere disagreement with

9

an order is an insufficient basis for reconsideration. Nor should reconsideration be used to make new

10

arguments or ask the Court to rethink its analysis. See N.W. Acceptance Corp. v. Lynnwood Equip.,

11

Inc., 841 F.2d 918, 925-26 (9th Cir. 1988).

12

Motions to reconsider are generally left to the discretion of the trial court. See Combs v. Nick

13

Garin Trucking, 825 F.2d 437, 441 (D.C. Cir. 1987). In order to succeed on a motion to reconsider,

14

a party must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its

15

prior decision. See Kern-Tulare Water Dist. v. City of Bakersfield, 634 F. Supp. 656, 665 (E.D. Cal.

16

1986), aff’d in part and rev’d in part on other grounds 828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir. 1987). Rule 59(e) of

17

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that any “motion to alter or amend a judgment shall be

18

filed no later than 28 days after entry of the judgment.” Furthermore, a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P.

19

59(e) “should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is

20

presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change

21

in the controlling law.” Herbst v. Cook, 260 F.3d 1039, 1044 (9th Cir. 2001), quoting McDowell v.

22

Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 1255 (9th Cir. 1999). Federal courts have determined that there are four

23

grounds for granting a Rule 59(e) motion: (1) the motion is necessary to correct manifest errors of

24

law or fact upon which the judgment is based; (2) the moving party presents newly discovered or

25

previously unavailable evidence; (3) the motion is necessary to prevent manifest injustice; or (4)

26

2

1

there is an intervening change in controlling law. Turner v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe R. Co.,

2

338 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2003). In the instant case, this Court properly entered judgment dismissing

3

this action in the order filed November 5, 2013. (ECF No. 5). Petitioner has failed to make an

4

adequate showing under either Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b) to justify granting his motion for

5

reconsideration.

6
7
8

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 7)
is DENIED.
July 30, 2014.
Dated this ______ day of July, 2014.

9
10
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

3