Dikes v. Ndoh

Opinion

MICHAEL GERALD DIKES, Case No.: 20-cv-335-MMA (NLS)

Petitioner, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR v. RECONSIDERATION

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