(HC) Felix v. Thompson ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 FRANCISCO GUERRA FELIX, No. 2:21-cv-00835-TLN-CKD 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 PAUL THOMPSON, 15 Respondent. 16 17 18 Petitioner Francisco Guerra Felix (“Petitioner”), a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, filed 19 an application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. On November 12, 2021, 20 the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on all parties 21 and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations 22 were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 10.) Petitioner subsequently filed objections to 23 the findings and recommendations, which were considered by this Court. (ECF No. 12.) Having 24 carefully reviewed the entire file, this Court adopted the findings and recommendations, finding 25 them to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. (ECF No. 14.) Accordingly, 26 Petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus was dismissed, the case was closed, and 27 judgement was entered. (ECF Nos. 14 & 15.) Petitioner then filed the instant Motion for 28 Reconsideration and Motion for a Certificate of Appealability. (ECF No. 16.) The Court will 1 examine each motion in turn. 2 A. Motion for Reconsideration 3 The Court construes Petitioner’s motion as a motion for reconsideration pursuant to Rule 4 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 5 Rule 59(e) states, “[a] motion to alter or amend a judgment must be filed no later than 28 6 days after the entry of the judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). The Court filed its Order (ECF No. 7 14) on January 11, 2022. Plaintiff filed the instant motion (ECF No. 16) on January 21, 2022, ten 8 days after the entry of judgment. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is timely. 9 However, “[u]nder Rule 59(e), a motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent 10 highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered 11 evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.” 389 12 Orange St. Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999). The Court has carefully 13 reviewed the entire file, including Plaintiff’s request (ECF No. 16). The Court still finds the 14 findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. Simply put, 15 though Plaintiff’s motion is timely, the Rule 59(e) standard is not met here. Therefore, 16 Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. 17 B. Motion for a Certificate of Appealability 18 Before Petitioner can appeal the decision, a certificate of appealability must issue. See 28 19 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). Where the petition is denied on the merits, 20 a certificate of appealability may issue “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of 21 the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). The Court must either issue 22 a certificate of appealability indicating which issues satisfy the required showing or must state the 23 reasons why such a certificate should not issue. See Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). Where the petition is 24 dismissed on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability should issue if the petitioner can 25 show that “jurists of reason could disagree with the district court's resolution of his 26 constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve 27 encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003) (citing Slack 28 v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). 1 Here, the petition was dismissed on procedural grounds, as it was not ripe for review. 2 | (See ECF No. 10.) However, Petitioner has not demonstrated any showing that jurists of reason 3 | could disagree with this Court’s resolution of his claim nor that jurists could conclude the issues 4 | presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further. (See ECF No. 16.) 5 | Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations, 6 | the Court finds that issuance of a certificate of appealability is not warranted in this case. 7 | Therefore, Petitioner’s Motion for a Certificate of Appealability is DENIED. 8 For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 16) and 9 | Motion for a Certificate of Appealability (ECF No. 16) are hereby DENIED. Accordingly, this 10 | Court DENIES a Certificate of Appealability. (See ECF No. 16.) 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 | DATED: March 9, 2022 13 { 4 /) 14 “ Wh Vokoy 15 Troy L. Nunley 16 United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28