(HC) Godfrey v. Warden PVSP ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 JM GODFREY, 11 Case No. 20-01381 BLF (PR) Petitioner, 12 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR v. RECONSIDERATION 13 14 WARDEN PVSP, 15 Respondent. 16 (Docket No. 22) 17 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ of habeas 18 corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging the denial of resentencing under state 19 law. Dkt. No. 1. On June 30, 2020, the Court dismissed the petition or lack of federal 20 habeas jurisdiction. Dkt. No. 19. Petitioner has filed a motion for reconsideration. Dkt. 21 No. 22. 22 DISCUSSION 23 A. Standard of Review 24 Where the court’s ruling has resulted in a final judgment or order (e.g., after 25 dismissal or summary judgment motion), a motion for reconsideration may be based either 26 on Rule 59(e) (motion to alter or amend judgment) or Rule 60(b) (motion for relief from 27 judgment) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Am. Ironworks & Erectors v. N. 1 Am. Constr. Corp., 248 F.3d 892, 898-99 (9th Cir. 2001). The denial of a motion for 2 reconsideration under Rule 59(e) is construed as a denial of relief under Rule 60(b). See 3 McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 1255 n.3 (9th Cir. 1999) (citation omitted) (en 4 banc). 5 Motions for reconsideration should not be frequently made or freely granted; they 6 are not a substitute for appeal or a means of attacking some perceived error of the court. 7 See Twentieth Century - Fox Film Corp. v. Dunnahoo, 637 F.2d 1338, 1341 (9th Cir. 8 1981). “‘[T]he major grounds that justify reconsideration involve an intervening change of 9 controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or 10 prevent manifest injustice.’” Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of Indians v. Hodel, 882 F.2d 11 364, 369 n.5 (9th Cir. 1989) (quoting United States v. Desert Gold Mining Co., 433 F.2d 12 713, 715 (9th Cir. 1970)). 13 1. Rule 59(e) 14 A motion to alter or amend judgment under Rule 59 must be made no later than 15 twenty-eight days after entry of judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) (effective Dec. 1, 16 2009); Classic Concepts, Inc. v. Linen Source, Inc., 716 F.3d 1282, 1286 (9th Cir. 2013). 17 A motion for reconsideration under Rule 59(e) “‘should not be granted, absent highly 18 unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered 19 evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the law.’” 20 McDowell 197 F.3d at 1255. 21 Petitioner asserts that the Court erred in failing to consider the two cases in his 22 petition: “US. V. Willis and Sessions v. Demaya,” asserting that these cases establish that 23 there is an undeniable constitutional question in his case. Dkt. No. 22 at 1, 3. United 24 States v. Willis, 795 F.3d 986 (2015), involved a challenge to a federal sentence for 25 violating conditions of supervised release based on the charge of felon in possession of a 26 firearm.1 Contrary to his assertion, the Court finds no reference to “Sessions v. Demaya” 27 1 in the petition. Dkt. No. 1. But even if there were, Petitioner fails to establish the 2 relevance of Sessions v. Dimaya, 138 S. Ct. 1204 (2018), which involved a petition for 3 review in an immigration case challenging the classification of his state convictions as 4 “crimes of violence” under federal law that was used as a basis for his deportation. The 5 Court finds no clear error in its dismissal of the petition for lack of federal habeas 6 jurisdiction because Petitioner’s claims essentially involved the interpretation and 7 application of state sentencing laws and did not give rise to a federal question. Dkt. No. 19 8 at 3-4. Petitioner’s reliance on the two cases mentioned above does not change this result. 9 Accordingly, the motion for reconsideration under Rule 59(e) is DENIED. 10 2. Rule 60(b) 11 Rule 60(b) lists six grounds for relief from a judgment. Such a motion must be 12 made within a “reasonable time,” and as to grounds for relief (1) - (3), no later than one 13 year after the judgment was entered. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). A Rule 60(b) motion does 14 not affect the finality of a judgment or suspend its operation, see id.; therefore, a party is 15 not relieved of its obligation to comply with the court’s orders simply by filing a Rule 16 60(b) motion. See Hook v. Arizona Dep't of Corrections, 107 F.3d 1397, 1404 (9th Cir. 17 1997). 18 Rule 60(b) provides for reconsideration where one or more of the following is 19 shown: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered 20 evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new 21 trial; (3) fraud by the adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been 22 satisfied; (6) any other reason justifying relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b); School Dist. 1J v. 23 ACandS Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir.1993). Based on Petitioner’s argument discussed 24 above, none of these reasons are a basis to justify reconsideration in this case. 25 Accordingly, the motion for reconsideration under Rule 60(b) is DENIED. 26 /// 27 /// 1 CONCLUSION 2 For the reasons discussed above, Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration, Dkt. No. 3 || 22,is DENIED. He may seek an appeal with the Ninth Circuit. 4 This order terminates Docket No. 22. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 || Dated: August 10, 2020 ke V ty Lily. | gener) BETHLA V FREEMAN 7 United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 g 2B 14 o 15 16 Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Order Denying Motion for Recon. 25 P:\PRO-SE\BLF\HC.20\01381Godfrey_deny-recon 26 27 28