Opinion
Case No. 1:11-cv-00572 AWI MJS (HC)
06-29-2015
DANIEL J. MARTINEZ, Petitioner, v. MATTHEW CATE, Respondent.
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
(Doc. 34)
Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
On March 27, 2015, the undersigned denied the petition, issued a limited certificate of appealability as to claim three, and declined to issue a certificate of appealability for the remaining claims. On April 20, 2015, Petitioner filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e).
I. LEGAL STANDARD
Relief under Rule 59(e) is appropriate when the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, the district court committed clear error, or a change in controlling law intervenes. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). To avoid being frivolous, such a motion must provide a valid ground for reconsideration. See MGIC Indem. Corp. v. Weisman, 803 F.2d 500, 505 (9th Cir. 1986). A motion to alter or amend a judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e) "must be filed no later than 28 days after the entry of the judgment." Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). Petitioner filed the motion 12 days after the judgment was filed. Accordingly, the motion is timely.
II. DISCUSSION
In his motion for reconsideration, Petitioner asserts that the Court erred in denying claims three, six, and seven of the petition. However, Petitioner does not set forth any arguments or evidence that have not already been considered by this Court. Petitioner asserts that the Court committed error by determining that the state court's denial of the claims was reasonable. Petitioner argues that the Court found that it was possible that the evidence indicated there was further interrogation after the invocation of Petitioner's Miranda rights, but unreasonably provided deference to the state court decision denying the claim. Likewise, Petitioner contends that the Court incorrectly determined that the statements by the prosecutor implicating that Petitioner was the party that tagged the street in front of the victim's house was not prosecutorial misconduct. Finally, Petitioner argues that the Court improperly denied his claim that instructional error violated his right to a fair trial. Petitioner presented similar arguments in his Petition, which the Court, upon review, found insufficient to warrant relief. His contentions in his motion for reconsideration fare no better. Petitioner has not presented newly discovered evidence, shown that the district court committed clear error, or that a change in controlling law to warrant amending or altering the judgment.
III. ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner's motion to alter or amend the judgment (Doc. 34) is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 29, 2015
/s/_________
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE