(HC) Griffin v. People of the State of California

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Dexter L. Griffin, No. 2:20-cv-0304-KJM-KJN P 12 Petitioner, ORDER 13 Vv. Brandon Price, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Judgment was entered in this habeas corpus action in August after the court adopted the 18 | Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations. See F&Rs, ECF No. 24; Order, ECF No. 27; 19 | Judgment, ECF No. 28. Later the same month, Mr. Griffin filed a letter addressed to the Clerk’s 20 | Office, which the court construes as a motion for relief from judgment under Rule 59(e). See 21 | ECF No. 29. 22 Rule 59(e) offers an “extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of finality 23 | and conservation of judicial resources.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 24 | (9th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted). A district court may grant a Rule 59(e) motion if it “‘is 25 | presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening 26 | change in the controlling law.” McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 1255 (9th Cir. 1999) (en 27 | banc) (emphasis omitted) (quoting 389 Orange St. Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th 28 | Cir. 1999)). “A Rule 59(e) motion may not be used to raise arguments or present evidence for the

1 first time when they could reasonably have been raised or presented earlier in the litigation.” 2 Kona, 229 F.3d at 890 (emphasis omitted). 3 Mr. Griffin lists several legal authorities, which he describes as “New Facts,” and he 4 attaches copies of several cases. See, e.g., Mot. at 2, 57–69 (citing and attaching People v. 5 Costello, No. D029126 (Cal. Ct. App. 4th Div. July 31, 1998)). These decisions do not identify 6 new evidence relevant to Mr. Griffin’s petition, demonstrate an intervening change in the law, 7 establish clear error, or show a “manifest injustice.” Mr. Griffin could have presented these 8 authorities earlier in the litigation. 9 The motion for reconsideration is denied. The court will disregard similar filings in the 10 future. This order resolves ECF No. 29. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 DATED: December 28, 2020.