Choate v. Williams et al

Filing 207

ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner Stephen Lee Choate's 196 Motion to Reconsider is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner's Motion to Extend 200 , 201 are DENIED as moot. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondents' 198 Mot ion to Relieve Respondents from Responding to future Pro Se Pleadings is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent required, a certificate of appealability is denied, as jurists of reason would not find the district court's disposition of petitioner's filings to be debatable or incorrect. Signed by Judge Richard F. Boulware, II on 9/13/2023. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AMMi)

Case 2:16-cv-00813-RFB-GWF Document 207 Filed 09/13/23 Page 1 of 2

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3

STEPHEN LEE CHOATE,

4
5
6

Case No. 2:16-cv-00813-RFB-GWF
Petitioner,

v.

ORDER

NEVADA ATTORNEY GENERAL, et al.,
Respondents.

7
8

This closed habeas matter is before the Court on Petitioner Stephen Lee Choate’s Motion

9

to Reconsider (ECF No. 196) and Motions to Extend (ECF Nos. 200, 201). Also before the Court

10

is Respondents’ Motion to Relieve Respondents from Responding to Future Pro Se Pleadings

11

(ECF No. 198).

12

I.

Background

13

Petitioner filed an amended petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (ECF

14

No. 97), which the Court dismissed as untimely and procedurally defaulted, followed by entry of

15

judgment. ECF Nos. 171, 172. Choate filed a notice of appeal, which the Ninth Circuit rejected

16

as untimely and denied his motion for reconsideration. ECF Nos. 185, 194. In January 2023, the

17

Court denied Petitioner’s filing titled “Petition for Writ of Mandamus” and Motion to Rule on

18

Probation and Judicial Exam. ECF No. 195.

19

II.

Petitioner’s Motions

20

Under Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a motion to alter or amend

21

judgment for any reason may be filed no later than 28 days after entry of judgment. A motion

22

seeking reconsideration should not be granted, “absent highly unusual circumstances,” unless the

23

court (1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial

24

decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law. Marlyn

25

Nutraceuticals, Inc. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009).

26

Rule 59(e) motions “may not be used to ‘raise arguments or present evidence for the first

27

time when they could reasonably have been raised earlier in the litigation.’” Rishor v. Ferguson,

28

822 F.3d 482, 492 (9th Cir. 2016).

“A party seeking reconsideration … must state with
1

Case 2:16-cv-00813-RFB-GWF Document 207 Filed 09/13/23 Page 2 of 2

1

particularity the points of law or fact that the court has overlooked or misunderstood. Changes in

2

legal of factual circumstances that may entitle the movant to relief also must be stated with

3

particularity.” LR 59-1.

4

Because Petitioner does not raise new claims in his motion to reconsider, the Court does

5

not construe Petitioner’s motion as a second or successive petition. See Rishor, 822 F.3d at 492.

6

Nothing in Petitioner’s Rule 59(e) motion convinces the Court that it clearly erred in dismissing

7

this action as untimely and procedurally defaulted. The motion does not cite, let alone attempt to

8

comply with, the applicable legal standard. Petitioner appears to assert an alleged lack of notice

9

that his petition was dismissed. Petitioner does not state a meritorious reason to reconsider prior

10

rulings and alter the judgment in this case. The motion to reconsider is therefore denied.

11

Accordingly, the Court denies Petitioner’s remaining pending motions to extend.

12

III.

Respondents request that the Court relieve them from responding to Petitioner’s future pro

13
14
15

se pleadings absent an order directing them to respond. The Court grants Respondents’ motion.
IV.

No. 196) is denied.
It is further ordered that Petitioner’s Motions to Extend (ECF Nos. 200, 201) are denied as

18
19
20
21

Conclusion
It is therefore ordered that Petitioner Stephen Lee Choate’s Motion to Reconsider (ECF

16
17

Respondents’ Motion

moot.
It is further ordered that Respondents’ Motion to Relieve Respondents from Responding
to Future Pro Se Pleadings (ECF No. 198) is granted.

22

It is further ordered that, to the extent required, a certificate of appealability is denied, as

23

jurists of reason would not find the district court’s disposition of petitioner’s filing to be debatable

24

or incorrect.

25

DATED this 13th day of September 2023.

26
27

RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

28

2