Cantor v. Martinez

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSHUA J. CANTOR, Case No. 24-cv-2181-MMA-JLB

12 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING MOTION 13 v. FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 14 KELLY MARTINEZ, et al.,

15 Respondents. [Doc. No. 20] 16 17 18 19 20 21 On November 19, 2024, Joshua J. Cantor filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus 22 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Doc. No. 1 (the “Petition” or “Pet.”). On April 4, 2025, 23 the Court issued an order denying the Petition and declining to issue a certificate of 24 appealability. Doc. No. 18. That same day, the Clerk’s Office entered judgment and 25 closed the case. Doc. No. 19. Petitioner now moves the Court to issue a certificate of 26 appealability. Doc. No. 20. Because the Court has already considered and ruled on this 27 matter, id. at 14–15, the Court treats Petitioner’s request as a motion for reconsideration 28 and DENIES his motion. 1 The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not expressly provide for motions for 2 reconsideration. However, Civil Local Rule 7.1.i provides that a party may seek 3 reconsideration of a ruling so long as the application is accompanied by, among other 4 things, an affidavit setting forth “what new or different facts and circumstances are 5 claimed to exist which did not exist, or were not shown, upon such prior application.” 6 CivLR7.1.i.1. Here, Petitioner has not submitted an affidavit along with his motion, nor 7 has he explained what new or different facts and circumstances exist that the Court 8 should consider. Instead, it is clear that Petitioner merely disagrees with the Court’s 9 underlying conclusion that he is not entitled to habeas relief and maintains that 10 reasonable jurists could debate that outcome. “‘A motion for reconsideration is not an 11 opportunity to renew arguments considered and rejected by the court, nor is it an 12 opportunity for a party to re-argue a motion because it is dissatisfied with the original 13 outcome.’” Isis Pharms., Inc. v. Santaris Pharma A/S Corp., No. 3:11-cv-2214-GPC- 14 KSC, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135666, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Sep. 25, 2014) (quoting Fed. 15 Trade Comm’n v. Neovi, Inc., No. 06-cv-1952-JLS-JMA, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 649, at 16 *6 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 7, 2009)). 17 A motion for reconsideration may also be construed as a motion to alter or amend 18 judgment under Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b). See Osterneck v. Ernst & Whinney, 489 U.S. 19 169, 174 (1989); In re Arrowhead Estates Dev. Co., 42 F.3d 1306, 1311 (9th Cir. 1994). 20 “[A] post-judgment motion will be considered a Rule 59(e) motion where it involves 21 ‘reconsideration of matters properly encompassed in a decision on the merits.’” 22 Osterneck, 489 U.S. at 174 (quoting White v. New Hampshire Dep’t of Employ’t Sec., 23 455 U.S. 445, 451 (1982)). Rule 59(e) grants district courts the authority to reconsider 24 and amend a previous order, but “the rule offers an extraordinary remedy, to be used 25 sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Carroll 26 v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks and citation 27 omitted). In the interests of judicial economy and the finality of judgments, “a motion for 28 reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the | || district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if 2 || there is an intervening change in the controlling law.” Carroll, 342 F.3d at 945 (quoting 3 || Kona Enters., Inc. v. Est. of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000)); Rodgers v. Watt, 4 F.2d 456, 459 (9th Cir. 1983) (holding there exists a “compelling interest in the 5 || finality of judgments which should not lightly be disregarded”). 6 Petitioner does not identify any newly discovered evidence or intervening change 7 controlling law. And having reviewed Petitioner’s motion, the Court finds that he has 8 ||not demonstrated that the Court committed clear error in concluding that he is not entitled 9 || to habeas relief and that reasonable jurists would not debate this outcome. In any event, 10 || Petitioner does not need to obtain the relief he seeks to file a notice of appeal from the 11 Court’s order. See Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). Accordingly, the Court finds that Petitioner is 12 entitled to reconsideration and therefore DENIES his motion. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 || Dated: May 5, 2025 Mahi Ha / ltr 15 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO 16 United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28