(HC) Nguyen v. Arias

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: April 9, 2025
• Docket: 2:23-cv-01086
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAI NGUYEN, No. 2:23-cv-01086-DAD-JDP (HC) 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND THE JUDGMENT 14 ARIAS, (Doc. Nos. 17, 19, 21, 23, 26) 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner Dai Nguyen is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a 18 petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a 19 United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On October 24, 2024, the court dismissed and closed this action due to petitioner’s failure 21 to state a cognizable claim for federal habeas relief. (Doc. No. 15.) In particular, the court 22 explained that petitioner’s attempts to recast the denial of his resentencing petition as a violation 23 of his due process rights did not state a cognizable claim for federal habeas relief, that there is no 24 federal constitutional right to counsel in resentencing proceedings, and that petitioner had not 25 explained how the jury instruction language he objected to was unconstitutionally vague. (Id. at 26 3–4.) That same day, judgment was entered. (Doc. No. 16.) 27 On November 5, 2024, petitioner filed the pending motion to alter or amend judgment 28 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). (Doc. No. 17.) This motion was referred to 1 the assigned magistrate judge, who issued findings and recommendations on November 20, 2024. 2 (Doc. Nos. 18, 19.) On November 26, 2024, petitioner filed timely objections to the magistrate 3 judge’s pending findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 20.) 4 Rule 59(e) “motions to reconsider are not vehicles permitting the unsuccessful party to 5 ‘rehash’ arguments previously presented.” United States v. Navarro, 972 F. Supp. 1296, 1299 6 (E.D. Cal. 1997), rev’d on other grounds, 160 F.3d 1254 (9th Cir. 1998), (rejecting “after 7 thoughts” and “shifting of ground” as appropriate grounds for reconsideration under Rule 59(e)); 8 see also Goodlow v. Camacho, No. 3:18-cv-0709-CAB-MDD, 2020 WL 6799381, at *1 (S.D. 9 Cal. Nov. 19, 2020) (noting that parties may not use Rule 59(e) to “relitigate old matters, or to 10 raise arguments or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment”) 11 (citation omitted); United States v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F. Supp. 2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 12 2001) (the moving party must show “more than a disagreement with the Court’s decision, and 13 [that] recapitulation of the cases and arguments considered by the court before rendering its 14 original decision fails to carry the moving party’s burden”); Costello v. U.S. Gov’t, 765 F. Supp. 15 1003, 1009 (C.D. Cal. 1991) (“[C]ourts avoid considering Rule 59(e) motions where the grounds 16 for amendment are restricted to either repetitive contentions of matters which were before the 17 court on its prior consideration or contentions which might have been raised prior to the 18 challenged judgment.”). 19 “A Rule 59(e) motion may be granted if ‘(1) the district court is presented with newly 20 discovered evidence, (2) the district court committed clear error or made an initial decision that 21 was manifestly unjust, or (3) there is an intervening change in controlling law.’” Ybarra v. 22 McDaniel, 656 F.3d 984, 998 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Zimmerman v. City of Oakland, 255 F.3d 23 734, 737 (9th Cir. 2001)). A Rule 59(e) motion seeks “a substantive change of mind by the 24 court,” Tripati v. Henman, 845 F.2d 205, 206 n.1 (9th Cir. 1988), and “is an extraordinary remedy 25 which should be used sparingly.” McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 1254 n.1 (9th Cir. 26 1999). 27 Here, as the magistrate judge explained in the pending findings and recommendations, 28 petitioner’s motion to alter or amend the judgment is merely “a rehash of his original arguments, 1 which were already rejected,” and “there is no clear error, newly discovered evidence, manifest 2 injustice, or intervening change in law that would support altering” the judgment. (Doc. No. 19 at 3 4.) The magistrate judge explained again that petitioner’s argument that he was entitled to 4 counsel during his resentencing is incorrect, that petitioner’s attempts to cloak state law issues of 5 resentencing “in the language of [] federal due process is unavailing,” and that petitioner “does 6 not allege that he was granted any resentencing relief by the state courts,” meaning there is “no 7 basis on which to conclude that the judgment was reopened.” (Id. at 2–3.) 8 The court has reviewed petitioner’s objections and finds that they do not provide a basis 9 upon which to reject the pending findings and recommendations. Petitioner again argues that “the 10 statute under which [he] was convicted” is “unconstitutional[ly] vague” without further 11 elaboration or explanation and again argues that the state court’s “distorted factfinding . . . 12 violated due process.” (Doc. No. 20 at 3, 5.) Petitioner also argues that “when a state court 13 chooses to reopen a final judgment, a case is sent back to state courts,” (Id. at 2) but the assigned 14 magistrate judge has already explained that petitioner has not alleged any basis upon which to 15 conclude that his underlying judgment of conviction was reopened by the state court, (Doc. No. 16 19 at 2). 17 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 18 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, 19 including petitioner’s objections, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be 20 supported by the record and by proper analysis. 21 Accordingly, 22 1. The findings and recommendations issued on November 20, 2024 (Doc. No. 19) 23 are ADOPTED in full; 24 2. Petitioner’s motion to alter or amend the judgment (Doc. No. 17) is DENIED; 25 3. Petitioner’s motion for leave to file an appeal (Doc. No. 21) is DENIED as moot in 26 light of petitioner’s subsequently filed notice of appeal (Doc. No. 22); 27 4. Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 23) is DENIED as 28 moot in light of the court’s prior order (Doc. No. 6); 1 5. Petitioner’s motion for the issuance of a certificate of appealability (Doc. No. 26) 2 is DENIED for the reasons explained in the court’s prior order (Doc. No. 15); and 3 6. This case shall remain closed. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. > | Dated: _ April 8, 2025 Dab A. 2, sxe 6 DALE A. DROZD 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28