Davis v. Bonta

[7] 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [10] 11 GAVIN B. DAVIS, Case No.: 21-CV-2042 JLS (BGS) 12 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S 13 v. MOTON FOR RECONSIDERATION 14 ROB BONITA, (ECF No. 17) California Attorney General, [15] Respondent. [17] 18 Presently before the Court is Petitioner Gavin Davis’s Motion for Reconsideration 19 and Relief on the Court’s Order (“Mot.,” ECF No. 17). On December 7, 2021, Petitioner 20 filed a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . (ECF No. 21 1 (“Pet.”).) Petitioner indicated he is challenging a conviction from the San Diego County 22 Superior Court for which, on June 7, 2018, he was sentenced to time served and three years 23 of probation. (Id. at 1.) His sentence completely expired on June 6, 2021. (Id. at 2.) The 24 Court dismissed the Petition for lack of jurisdiction because Petitioner was not in actual or 25 constructive custody at the time the Petition was filed. (ECF No. 6.) On December 20, 26 2021, Petitioner filed a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 27 Procedure 59(e) (ECF No. 9), and a motion for disqualification of the undersigned pursuant 28 to 28 U.S.C. §§ 144 and 455 (ECF No. 10). The Court denied Petitioner’s motion for relief 1 from judgment (ECF No. 11) and denied Petitioner’s motion for disqualification as moot 2 (the “Order,” ECF No. 16). Petitioner subsequently filed the present Motion seeking 3 reconsideration of the Order that found his motion for disqualification moot. 4 “A Rule 59(e) motion may be granted if ‘(1) the district court is presented with newly 5 discovered evidence, (2) the district court committed clear error or made an initial decision 6 that was manifestly unjust, or (3) there is an intervening change in controlling law.’” 7 Ybarra v. McDaniel, 656 F.3d 984, 998 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Zimmerman v. City of 8 Oakland, 255 F.3d 734, 737 (9th Cir. 2001)). This type of motion seeks “a substantive 9 change of mind by the court,” Tripati v. Henman, 845 F.2d 205 , 206 n.1 (9th Cir. 1988) 10 (quoting Miller v. Transamerican Press, Inc., 709 F.2d 524, 526 (9th Cir. 1983)), and “is 11 an extraordinary remedy which should be used sparingly,” McDowell v. Calderon, 197 12 F.3d 1253 , 1254 n.1 (9th Cir. 1999). Rule 59(e) may not be used to “relitigate old matters, 13 or to raise arguments or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of 14 judgment.” Stevo Design, Inc. v. SBR Mktg. Ltd., 919 F. Supp. 2d 1112, 1117 (D. Nev. 15 2013) (quoting 11 Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 2810.1 (2d 16 ed. 1995)). 17 Petitioner argues the Court incorrectly denied his motion for disqualification as moot 18 and repeats the arguments he made in his original motion. In order to justify 19 reconsideration, Civil Local Rule 7.1(i) requires Petitioner to show that “new or different 20 facts and circumstances . . . exist which did not exist, or were not shown,” at the time the 21 Court denied his last motion as moot on April 11, 2022. See S.D. Cal. CivLR 7.1(i)(1). 22 “Evidence is only newly discover[ed] if it was in fact previously unavailable—i.e. the party 23 asserting the evidence, acting with reasonable diligence, could not have previously 24 discovered the evidence.” Vasquez v. City of Idaho Falls, Case No. 4:16-cv-184-DCN, [26] 27 1 Mr. Davis appealed the Court’s dismissal of his Petition and denial of his motion for relief from judgment. (ECF No. 12.) The Ninth Circuit denied Petitioner’s request for a certificate of appealability [28] 1 WL 1123865 , at *3 (D. Idaho 2018) (citing Zimmerman, 255 F.3d at 740 ). Petitioner 2 ||has not presented any newly discovered evidence. Ybarra, 656 F.3d at 998 . Nor has he 3 demonstrated that “the district court committed clear error or made an initial decision that 4 || was manifestly unjust, or . . . [that] there [was] an intervening change in controlling law.” 5 ||Id. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration and Relief 6 the Court’s Order (ECF No. 17). The Court will entertain no further filings from 7 || Petitioner in this closed case. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 ||Dated: June 13, 2022 . tt 10 jen Janis L. Sammartino United States District Judge [28] 3 ee