UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
August 20, 2007
DARNELL JOHNSON, PETITIONER,
JEANNE WOODFORD, WARDEN, RESPONDENT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Roger T. Benitez United States District Judge
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION[Docket No. 59]
Petitioner DARNELL JOHNSON ("Petitioner") filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 ("Petition"), challenging his state court conviction for first degree murder. On January 12, 2007, Honorable Magistrate Judge Barbara L. Major issued a thoughtful and thorough Report and Recommendation ("Report"), recommending the Petition be denied in its entirety. On May 07, 2007, this Court adopted the Report and denied the Petition in its entirety.
Petitioner now seeks a Motion for Reconsideration*fn1 of the Court's May 07, 2007, Order. For the reasons stated below, the Court denies the motion.
Petitioner asks this Court to reconsider its previous order under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). Reconsideration under Rule 59(e) "is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law." School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993) (citing All Hawaii Tours, Corp. v. Polynesian Cultural Center, 116 F.R.D. 645, 648 (D. Hawaii 1987), rev'd on other grounds, 855 F.2d 860 (9th Cir.1988)). None of these circumstances apply here, Petitioner merely seeks for this Court to change its mind in Petitioner's favor. The Petitioner presents no newly discovered evidence to justify reconsideration. Similarly, the Court finds that Rule 60(b) has no application here either. Rule 60(b) allows the Court to relieve a party from final judgment on the basis of "(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect; ....(6) or any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment." Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). This has not been shown and does not apply.
Furthermore, Local Civil Rule 7.1.i requires a party seeking reconsideration to show "what new or different facts and circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist, or were not shown, upon such prior application." Petitioner has failed to fulfill this procedural requirement. Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. No. 59) is therefore DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.