(HC) Ford v. Trate

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: January 29, 2024
• Docket: 1:22-cv-01327
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 QUINDELL FORD, ) Case No.: 1:22-cv-1327 JLT CDB ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO ) ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT 13 v. ) ) (Doc. 19) 14 B.M. TRATE, ) ) 15 Defendant. ) ) 16

17 Quindell Ford filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, 18 challenging his conviction and sentence under the “escape hatch” of 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e). (See Doc. 1.) 19 The Court dismissed the petition with prejudice and entered judgment. (Docs. 17, 18.) Petitioner now 20 moves to alter or amend the judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 21 (Doc. 19.) 22 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) permits a party to move a court to alter or amend its 23 judgment. “A district court may grant a Rule 59(e) motion if it ‘is presented with newly discovered 24 evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.’” Wood v. 25 Ryan, 759 F.3d 1117, 1121 (9th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks, citation omitted). Reconsideration 26 is an “extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial 27 resources.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). Ultimately, 28 whether to grant or deny a motion for reconsideration is in the “sound discretion” of the district 1 court. Navajo Nation v. Norris, 331 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing Kona, 229 F.3d at 883). A 2 Rule 59(e) motion “may not be used to relitigate old matters, or to raise arguments or present evidence 3 that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment.” Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471, 4 486 n. 5 (2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). 5 As an initial matter, Petitioner asserts the Court “failed to consider several circumstances 6 before rendering its decision to deny the petition,” including “the conditions of [his] confinement, 7 which lead to the delay in filing [his] Objections…” (Doc. 19 at 1.) Second, Petitioner contends the 8 Court did not adopt a “final order under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(a), which is limited to ‘orders that 9 dispose of the merits of a habeas corpus proceeding – a proceeding challenging the lawfulness of the 10 petitioners (sic) detention.’” (Id. at 2, quoting Harbison v. Bell, 556 U.S. 180, 183 (2009) [emphasis 11 omitted].) Petitioner notes “this Court has not made a finding of whether a Certificate of Appealability 12 … is granted and why or why not.” (Id.) Finally, Petitioner renews his arguments that he is actually 13 innocent, asserting the Court did not make a proper judicial review of the merits of his claims. (Id. at 14 2, see also id. at 3-5.) 15 To the contrary, the Court considered Plaintiff’s objections in its order adopting the Findings 16 and Recommendations. (Doc. 17 at 2-3.) The Court reviewed the late objections and found Petitioner 17 did not challenge—or even address—the “finding that Petitioner did not lack an unobstructed 18 procedural shot to raise his habeas claim in his court of conviction (the District Court for the District of 19 Maryland).” (Id. at 2.) Petitioner also argued in his objections that “nothing in the statute for a writ of 20 habeas corpus allows a district court to consider jurisdiction rather than issuing the writ,” and the Court 21 rejected this argument. (Id. at 2-3.) Because the Court reviewed and addressed the objections, the 22 reported circumstances causing a filing delay did not cause any prejudice to Petitioner, and do not offer 23 any support to altering the judgment. 24 Petitioner now renews his assertions related to actual innocence and the merits of the petition, 25 without addressing the determination that the Court lacks jurisdiction. Importantly, his disagreement 26 with the Court’s decision to not reach the merits—given the lack of jurisdiction—is insufficient to 27 warrant reconsideration. Cromer v. Songer, 2016 WL 3351408, *1 (E.D. Cal. June 15, 2016); see 28 also Collins v. D.R. Horton, Inc., 252 F.Supp.2d 936, 938 (D. Ariz. 2003) (a motion cannot be used to 1 || ask the Court to rethink what the Court has already considered merely because a party disagrees with 2 || the decision); Leong v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 689 F.Supp. 1572, 1573 (D. Haw. 1988) (mere 3 || disagreement with a previous order is an insufficient basis for reconsideration). 4 Finally, a certificate of appealability is generally necessary to appeal a “final order in a habea: 5 || corpus proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). A final order is one that “dispose[s] of the merits of □ 6 || habeas proceeding.” Harbison v. Bell, 556 U.S. 180, 183 (2009) (emphasis added); see also Lambrigi 7 || v. Ryan, 698 F.3d 808, 817 n.2 (9th Cir. 2012). An order dismissing a petition for lack of jurisdiction 8 || “is not a ‘final order in a habeas corpus proceeding’ within the meaning of the statute.” Hubbard v. 9 || Campbell, 379 F.3d 1245, 1247 (11th Cir. 2004). Consequently, as Petitioner asserts, the Order 10 || Adopting the Findings and Recommendations—dismissing the action for lack of jurisdiction—was □□ 11 || a “final order” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). For this reason, a certificate of 12 || appealability is not required. See Lambright, 698 F.3d at 817, n.2; see also Hubbard, 379 F.3d at 124 13 || Jennings v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep't of Corr., 2023 U.S.App.LEXIS 11277, at*2 (11th Cir. 2023) (“Because 14 || the district court ... dismissed [the] petition for lack of jurisdiction, he does not need a certificate of 15 || appealability to challenge on appeal the district court’s dismissal.”) 16 Petitioner fails to present newly discovered evidence, show the Court committed clear error, c 17 || identify a change in controlling law that would mandate amendment of the judgment. Wood, 759 □□□□ 18 |} at 1121. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS: Petitioner’s motion to alter or amend the judgment under 19 || Rule 59 (Doc. 19) is DENIED. 20 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 |! Dated: _ January 29, 2024 ( LAW pA L. wan 23 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28