United States District Court, N.D. California
MIGUEL A. CISNEROS, Petitioner,
JIM ROBERTSON, Respondent.
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION DKT. NO.
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR., UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
a state prisoner presently incarcerated in Pelican Bay State
Prison, filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On September 5,
2019, the Court dismissed the petition for failure to exhaust
state court remedies without prejudice to petitioner
returning to federal court after exhausting his state court
remedies by presenting his claims to the California Supreme
Court. Dkt. Nos. 57, 58. The Court denied a certificate of
appealability and entered judgment in favor of respondent.
has filed a pleading titled “Opposition Argument for
the Court to re[-]amend petition and not grant the dismissal
base on defens[e] evidence presented significant probative
value to the ruling of the motion dismissal of petition,
” which the Court construes as a motion seeking
reconsideration pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure. Dkt. No. 59. For the following reasons,
the Court DENIES the motion for reconsideration.
the court’s ruling has resulted in a final judgment or
order, a motion for reconsideration may be based on Rule
59(e) (motion to alter or amend judgment) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e).
Although Rule 59(e) permits a district court to reconsider
and amend a previous order, the rule offers an extraordinary
remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of finality and
conservation of judicial resources. Indeed, a motion for
reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual
circumstances, unless the district court is presented with
newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there
is an intervening change in the controlling law.
Kona Enterprises, Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d
877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000) (internal quotation marks and
argues that the Court committed clear error in dismissing his
petition because the Court erroneously denied his request to
amend the amended petition and the proposed second amended
petition contained evidence that he had exhausted his state
court remedies. Dkt. No. 59. The denial for
petitioner’s request for leave to file the proposed
second amended petition was not clear error because (1) the
Court properly denied the request to amend the amended
petition on the grounds that no new claims were alleged, and
(2) the Court construed the proposed second amended petition
as a sur-reply and considered the sur-reply in deciding the
motion to dismiss. Dkt. No. 55. In other words, the
“evidence” presented in the sur-reply (proposed
second amended petition) was considered by the Court.
Moreover, the evidence in the sur-reply (proposed second
amended petition) was not evidence that petitioner had
exhausted his state court remedies. As part of the sur-reply,
petitioner submitted the San Mateo County Superior
Court’s April 15, 2019, denial of his state habeas
petition that raised the claims in the instant action. Dkt.
No. 54 at 28-30. This denial does not exhaust the
petitioner’s state court remedies. Petitioner continues
to misunderstand the exhaustion requirement. As explained in
the Court’s September 5, 2019 Order:
The exhaustion requirement requires petitioners seeking
federal habeas relief to provide the highest state court
available an opportunity to rule on the merits of their
federal habeas claims. See 28 U.S.C. §
2254(b)–(c); Rose, 455 U.S. at 515–16.
Applied to the amended petition, the exhaustion requirement
requires Petitioner to have submitted the claims in the
amended petition to the California Supreme Court, whether in
a petition for review or a state habeas petition, before this
Court may consider his claims.
Dkt. No. 57 at 5. Because the record shows that petitioner
has only presented the claims in the instant action to the
San Mateo County Superior Court, and has not presented these
claims to the California Supreme Court, the Court did not
commit clear error in dismissing this action without
prejudice to petitioner returning to federal court after
exhausting his state court remedies by presenting his claims
to the California Supreme Court. Nor does the dismissal
constitute manifest injustice. Petitioner may refile this
action after he has exhausted his state court remedies by
presenting his claims to the California Supreme Court.
foregoing reasons, petitioner’s request for
reconsideration pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the dismissal
without prejudice for failure to exhaust state remedies is