1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PEDRO RODRIGUEZ, Case No.: 21-cv-1443-MMA (WVG) 12 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 13 v. RECONSIDERATION 14 KATHLEEN ALLISON, Warden, [Doc. No. 60] 15 Respondent. 16 17 On August 9, 2021, Pedro Rodriguez (“Petitioner”), a San Diego County prisoner 18 proceeding pro se, filed a habeas corpus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (the 19 “Petition”). See Doc. No. 1. On August 9, 2022, Magistrate Judge William V. Gallo 20 issued a detailed and well-reasoned Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), 21 recommending that the Court grant Respondent’s motion and dismiss the Petition without 22 leave to amend. See Doc. No. 51 at 12.1 On September 21, 2022, the Court issued an 23 Order adopting Judge Gallo’s R&R, granting Respondent’s petition, and dismissing the 24 Petition without leave to amend. Doc. No. 56. On September 30, 2022, Petitioner filed a 25 Notice of Appeal. Doc. No. 58. On October 12, 2022, Petitioner filed the instant Motion 26 27 28 1 for Reconsideration regarding the Court’s September 21, 2022 Order. Doc. No. 60 at 1. 2 For the following reasons, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration. 3 LEGAL STANDARD 4 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) authorizes courts to provide relief from 5 judgment by motion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). Under Rule 59(e), it is appropriate to 6 alter or amend a judgment if “(1) the district court is presented with newly discovered 7 evidence, (2) the district court committed clear error or made an initial decision that was 8 manifestly unjust, or (3) there is an intervening change in controlling law.” United Nat’l 9 Ins. Co. v. Spectrum Worldwide, Inc., 555 F.3d 772, 780 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting 10 Zimmerman v. City of Oakland, 255 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir. 2001)); see also Marlyn 11 Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009). 12 “A motion for reconsideration is not a vehicle to reargue the motion or to present 13 evidence which should have been raised before.” United States v. Westlands Water Dist., 14 134 F. Supp. 2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001) (quoting Bermingham v. Sony Corp. of Am., 15 Inc., 820 F. Supp. 834, 856 (D.N.J. 1992), aff’d, 37 F.3d 1485 (3d Cir. 1994)). 16 Therefore, “[a] party seeking reconsideration must show more than a disagreement with 17 the Court’s decision, and recapitulation of the cases and arguments considered by the 18 [C]ourt before rendering its original decision fails to carry the moving party’s burden.” 19 Id. (quoting Bermingham, 820 F. Supp. 2d at 856–57). This is because Rule 59(e) may 20 not be used to relitigate old matters, raise new arguments, or present evidence that could 21 have been raised prior to entry of the judgment. See Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 22 U.S. 471, 486–87 (2008); see also Taylor v. Knapp, 871 F.2d 803, 805 (9th Cir. 1988) 23 (finding denial of a Rule 59(e) motion proper where the motion “presented no arguments 24 that had not already been raised in opposition to summary judgment”). 25 RECONSIDERATION 26 As an initial matter, it is “a general rule, [that] the filing of a notice of appeal 27 divests a district court of jurisdiction over those aspects of the case involved in the 28 appeal.” Stein v. Wood, 127 F.3d 1187, 1189 (9th Cir.1997). The district court, however, 1 || does retain jurisdiction to adjudicate post-judgment matters such as post-judgment 2 |}motions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59. See Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 402-03. Therefore, 3 Court finds that it has jurisdiction to consider the instant Motion for Reconsideration. 4 Here, Petitioner does not present any arguments relating to newly discovered 5 || evidence or an intervening change in law. Thus, Petitioner only appears to raise 6 || arguments that fall under a challenge based upon clear error. However, Petitioner does 7 ||not identify any specific error in the Court’s September 21, 2022 Order. Rather, 8 || Petitioner appears to be in general disagreement with the Court’s ruling and is attempting 9 || to re-litigate matters already decided. See Westlands Water Dist., 134 F. Supp. 2d 10 |}at1131. These arguments are insufficient to alter or amend a judgment pursuant to Rule 11 ||59(e). □□□ In an abundance of caution, the Court has reviewed its September 21, 2022 12 || Order and the related filings on the docket and finds that it did not commit any clear error 13 |/in reaching its conclusions. 14 CONCLUSION 15 For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s motion for 16 || reconsideration. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 Dated: October 17, 2022 19 Wiaidel Ue holes 20 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28