(HC) Williams v. Martel ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 1] David Earl Williams, No. 2:18-cv-02224-KJM-DB 12 Petitioner ORDER 13 v. Michael Martel, 1S Respondent 16 17 Judgment was entered on this case on August 19, 2022 after this court adopted the 18 | magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations and denied the petitioner’s petition for writ of 19 | habeas corpus. See Judgment, ECF No. 46; Order, ECF No. 45. Petitioner has now filed a 20 | “supplemental letter,” which the court construes as a motion for reconsideration. Suppl. Letter, 21 | ECF No. 47; see also Fed R. Civ. P. 59(e) (“A motion to alter or amend a judgment must be filed 22 | no later than 28 days after the entry of the judgment.”). A Rule 59(e) motion “should not be 23 | granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly 24 | discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling 25 | law.” 389 Orange Street Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999). 26 Petitioner presents several pieces of evidence, including letters from his counselor and 27 | friends, that emphasize his efforts toward rehabilitation. See generally Suppl. Letter. While the 28 | court commends petitioner for such efforts, he still has not produced sufficient evidence to satisfy 1 | the stringent requirements to obtain habeas relief, even assuming the documents he provided 2 | might qualify as “new evidence” supporting reconsideration. Thus, the motion is denied. 3 This order resolves ECF No. 47. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 DATED: September 8, 2022. [\ (] 6 ( ti / { q_/ CHIEF NT] ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 45