IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
April 24, 2013
JEFFREY DEANE WARD, PETITIONER,
M. D. BITTER, WARDEN, KERN VALLEY STATE PRISON, RESPONDENT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: James K. Singleton, Jr. United States District Judge
[Re: Motion at Docket No. 38]
At Docket No. 38 Jeffrey Deane Ward, a state prisoner appearing pro se, timely filed a "Civil Rule 59/Motion for New Trial/Reconsideration" in which he requests "reconsideration" of the Memorandum Decision and Judgment of this Court denying his Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on March 21, 2013, at Docket No. 37. The gravamen of Ward's motion is that he is seeking reconsideration of the judgment of this Court, and the motion was filed within twenty-eight days of entry of judgment. Accordingly, his motion is treated as a motion to alter or amend the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e).*fn1
Respondent did not oppose Ward's motion.
In general, there are four basic grounds upon which a Rule 59(e) motion may be granted:
(1) the motion is necessary to correct manifest errors of law or fact upon which the judgment rests; (2) the motion is necessary to present newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence; (3) the motion is necessary to prevent manifest injustice; or (4) there is an intervening change in controlling law. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Herron, 634 F.3d 1101, 1111 (9th Cir. 2011) (citation omitted). However, "amending a judgment after its entry [is] an extraordinary remedy which should be used sparingly." Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Further, a Rule 59(e) motion "may not be used to relitigate old matters, or to raise arguments or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment."*fn2
Ward has not made an adequate showing under any of the four basic grounds for reconsideration referenced above; rather, he simply repeats arguments raised in his Petition and Traverse. Ward has failed to provide any basis upon which this Court could reconsider its decision.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT the Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment at Docket No. 38 is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT the Court declines to issue a Certificate of Appealability.*fn3 Any further request for a Certificate of Appealability must be addressed to the Court of Appeals.*fn4
James K. Singleton, Jr.