Richardson v. Frazier

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KEVIN RICHARDSON, Case No.: 22-CV-1447 TWR (AHG)

12 Petitioner, ORDER (1) DENYING MOTION 13 v. TO AMEND OR ALTER THE JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO 14 FED. R. CIV. P. 59(e), AND FRAZIER, Warden, 15 (2) DENYING CERTIFICATE OF Respondent. APPEALABILITY 16

17 (ECF No. 15)

18 19 On September 22, 2022, Petitioner Kevin Richardson, a state prisoner proceeding 20 pro se, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (See ECF 21 No. 1 (“Pet.”).) On October 25, 2022, the Court dismissed it for failure to state a 22 cognizable claim. (See ECF No. 4.) Petitioner was given leave to amend his petition, 23 (see id. at 5), and he did so on November 29, 2022. (See ECF Nos. 5, 6.) The Court 24 dismissed the amended petition for failure to state a cognizable claim on January 9, 2023, 25 and gave Petitioner one final opportunity to amend. (See ECF No. 7.) On March 6, 2023, 26 Petitioner filed a Second Amended Petition, (see ECF No. 13 (“SAP”)), which again 27 failed to state a cognizable claim. (See ECF No. 14.) The Court therefore dismissed the 1 March 20, 2023. (See id.) On April 6, 2023, Petitioner filed the instant Motion to Amend 2 or Alter the Judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). (See ECF No. 3 15 (“Mot.”).) 4 MOTION TO AMEND OR ALTER THE JUDGMENT 5 A Rule 59(e) motion may be granted where: (1) the motion is necessary to correct 6 manifest errors of law or fact upon which a judgment is based, (2) the moving party 7 presents newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence, (3) the motion is necessary 8 to prevent manifest injustice, or (4) there is an intervening change in the controlling law. 9 See McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 1254 n.1 (9th Cir. 1999) (en banc). This rule 10 “enables a district court to rectify its own mistakes in the period immediately following 11 its decision, but not to address new arguments or evidence that the moving party could 12 have raised before the decision.” Banister v. Davis, 590 U.S. ___, 140 S. Ct. 1698, 1700 13 (2020). The Ninth Circuit has held that a Rule 59(e) motion “should not be granted, 14 absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly 15 discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the 16 controlling law.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Est. of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). 17 Like Petitioner’s previous petitions, the Motion is difficult to decipher. Instead of 18 pointing to any specific error of law or fact in the Court’s final dismissal order, Petitioner 19 lists an assortment of legal rules, such as the definition of judicial notice and the standard 20 for establishing competency. (See Mot. at 2–3.) To the extent the Motion contains any 21 allegation of error by the Court, Petitioner states: “This matter involves lack of 22 communication, I respond to court information, the court blocks any positive, and 23 demonstrative work, by informing Petitioner (who can communicate) that the court 24 cannot understand.” (Id. at 4.) Petitioner goes on to state that “the court is not allowed 25 to deny substantive procedural and remedial efforts to this matter. Real/true court – law 26 and order preside, fake/false well, sedition in place.” (Id.) 27 Petitioner fails, however, to present any argument that the Court erred in 1 habeas relief. Nothing in the motion points to “manifest errors of law or fact” or “newly 2 discovered evidence.” See McDowell, 197 at 1254 n.1 Nor does Petitioner point to any 3 intervening change in law or manifest injustice. See id. Because Petitioner has not 4 demonstrated that such an extraordinary remedy is necessary, relief is not warranted under 5 Rule 59(e), and the Court therefore DENIES the Motion. 6 CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 7 A state prisoner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to 8 appeal a district court’s denial of relief, and an appeal is only allowed in certain 9 circumstances. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335–36 (2003); see also 28 10 U.S.C. § 2253. The Ninth Circuit has held that a certificate of appealability “is required 11 to appeal the denial of a Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment arising out of the 12 denial of a section 2255 motion.” United States v. Winkles 795 F.3d 1134, 1142 (9th Cir. 13 2015). If a court denies a Rule 60(b) motion in a § 2255 proceeding, a certificate of 14 appealability should only issue if “(1) jurists of reason would find it debatable whether 15 the district court abused its discretion in denying the Rule 60(b) motion and (2) jurists of 16 reason would find it debatable whether the underlying section 2255 motion states a valid 17 claim of the denial of a constitutional right.” Winkles, 795 F.3d at 1143. 18 To the extent Winkles applies to a Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend judgment 19 arising out of the dismissal of a § 2254 petition,1 the Court finds that Petitioner is not 20 entitled to a certificate of appealability because jurists of reason would not find it 21 debatable whether the Court abused its discretion in denying the Rule 59(e) motion. The 22 Court therefore DENIES Petitioner a Certificate of Appealability. 23 / / / 24 / / / 25 / / / 26 27 1 “[S]ection 2255 ‘was intended to mirror § 2254 in operative effect.’” Winkles, 795 F.3d at 1141; Ruelas 1 CONCLUSION 2 For the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES Petitioner's Motion to Amend or 3 || Alter the Judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e) (ECF No. 15) and DENIES Petitioner a 4 || Certificate of Appealability. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 April 17, 2023 7 [ odd (2 (are g Honorable Todd W. Robinson United States District Judge 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 A 5 6 7 8