Dikes v. Ndoh

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: June 14, 2022
• Docket: 3:20-cv-00335
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL GERALD DIKES, Case No.: 20-cv-335-MMA (NLS)

12 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 13 v. RECONSIDERATION

14 KATHLEEN ALLISON et al., [Doc. No. 33] 15 Respondents. 16 17 On May 17, 2022, the Court issued an Order (1) Denying Petition for Writ of 18 Habeas Corpus; (2) Denying Petitioner’s Request for an Evidentiary Hearing, for an 19 Order to Show Cause, for Appointment of Counsel, and Other Relief; and (3) Denying a 20 Certificate of Appealability. Doc. No. 28 (the “Petition Order”). Petitioner now seeks 21 reconsideration of his habeas corpus petition. Doc. No. 33. Although Petitioner does not 22 specify any Court order in his motion, see id., the Court construes his request as seeking 23 reconsideration of the Petition Order. For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES 24 Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration. 25 LEGAL STANDARD 26 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) authorizes courts to provide relief from 27 judgment by motion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). Under Rule 59(e), it is appropriate to 28 alter or amend a judgment if “(1) the district court is presented with newly discovered 1 evidence, (2) the district court committed clear error or made an initial decision that was 2 manifestly unjust, or (3) there is an intervening change in controlling law.” United Nat’l 3 Ins. Co. v. Spectrum Worldwide, Inc., 555 F.3d 772, 780 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting 4 Zimmerman v. City of Oakland, 255 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir. 2001)); see also Marlyn 5 Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009). 6 “A motion for reconsideration is not a vehicle to reargue the motion or to present 7 evidence which should have been raised before.” United States v. Westlands Water Dist., 8 134 F. Supp. 2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001) (quoting Bermingham v. Sony Corp. of Am., 9 Inc., 820 F. Supp. 834, 856 (D.N.J. 1992), aff’d, 37 F.3d 1485 (3d Cir. 1994)). 10 Therefore, “[a] party seeking reconsideration must show more than a disagreement with 11 the Court’s decision, and recapitulation of the cases and arguments considered by the 12 [C]ourt before rendering its original decision fails to carry the moving party’s burden.” 13 Id. (quoting Bermingham, 820 F. Supp. 2d at 856–57). This is because Rule 59(e) may 14 not be used to relitigate old matters, raise new arguments, or present evidence that could 15 have been raised prior to entry of the judgment. See Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 16 U.S. 471, 486–87 (2008); see also Taylor v. Knapp, 871 F.2d 803, 805 (9th Cir. 1988) 17 (finding denial of a Rule 59(e) motion proper where the motion “presented no arguments 18 that had not already been raised in opposition to summary judgment”). 19 RECONSIDERATION 20 Petitioner argues there are four grounds to support his motion: (1) “the state or 21 reviewing courts have not adjudicated petitioner’s claims on the merits because no court 22 has held a fact finding evidentiary hearing;” (2) “[n]o court has argued petitioner claims 23 are without merit, and proven it;” (3) “Petitioner has shown that the reviewing courts 24 unreasonably found any facts and unreasonably applied U.S. Supreme Court law, that has 25 been clearly established, leading to an unreasonable determination of the facts;” and 26 (4) “[a]ny reviewing courts decisions have been contrary to clearly established Federal 27 28 1 promulgated by the United States Supreme Courts holdings.” Doc. No. 33 at 1-2.! 2 Petitioner does not present any arguments relating to newly discovered evidence or 3 intervening change in law. Thus, Petitioner only appears to raise arguments that fall 4 || under a challenge based upon clear error. However, Petitioner does not identify any 5 || specific error or provide particular reasons as to any alleged error in the Court’s Petition 6 ||Order. Rather, Petitioner’s arguments appear to assert a general disagreement with the 7 || Court’s rulings and an attempt to re-litigate matters already decided. See Westlands 8 || Water Dist., 134 F. Supp. 2d at 1131. These arguments are insufficient to alter or amend 9 judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e). /d. In an abundance of caution, the Court has 10 reviewed the Petition Order and the related filings on the docket and finds that it did not 11 |}commit any clear error in reaching its conclusions. 12 CONCLUSION 13 For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s motion for 14 || reconsideration. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 Dated: June 14, 2022 17 Mithe LIu- hilt 18 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO 19 United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 All citations to electronically filed documents refer to the pagination assigned by the CM/ECF system.