Person v. Andrewjeski

Opinion

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 8

9 ANTHONY SHRONE PERSON, No. 23-cv-5434-BJR 10 Petitioner,

11 v. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO AMEND JUDGMENT 12 MELISSA ANDREWJESKI, Respondent. 13

14 Petitioner, formerly known as Anthony Shrone Person (n/k/a Jafaka Meno Matiya, 15 16 “Petitioner”) filed a motion under Federal Rule 59(e), seeking amendment of this Court’s 17 Judgment and Order Adopting the Report and Recommendation (“Order”) and dismissing his 18 petition for habeas corpus. Such motions “should not be granted, absent highly unusual 19 circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed 20 clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.” McDowell v. Calderon, 197 21 F.3d 1253, 1255 (9th Cir. 1999) (citations omitted). In the motion, Petitioner repeats statements 22 23 from his petition and objections to the R&R that he is “actually innocent,” and entitled to an 24 evidentiary hearing, which the Court denied in its Order. 25 26

ORDER DENYING FEDERAL RULE 59(e) MOTION - 1 1 A habeas petitioner is entitled to an evidentiary hearing only if the allegations in the petition 2 || would, if proved, entitle the petitioner to relief, and the state court trier of fact has not, after a full 3 |) and fair hearing, reliably found the relevant facts. See Phillips v. Woodford, 267 F.3d 966 (9th Cir. 4 2001). The instant motion, like the petition itself, once again fails to identify any evidence ° suggesting an evidentiary hearing is in order. Petitioner’s Federal Rule 59(e) motion is DENIED. SO ORDERED. Dated: March 20, 2024. firae pMedcrias 9 Barbara Jacobs Rothstein 10 U.S. District Court Judge 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ORDER DENYING FEDERAL RULE 59(e) MOTION - 2