Alexander Robert Jacome v. Gavin Newsom
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Roger T. Benitez (author)
Analysis
The court considered a pro se state prisoner's motion to modify a judgment that had previously dismissed his habeas petition for failure to state a federal claim. The court denied the motion as untimely under Rule 59(e) and insufficient under Rule 60(b), noting that the petitioner's request for supplemental jurisdiction over state criminal cases was legally impermissible in a federal habeas proceeding.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Denial of Petitioner's Motion for Modification of Judgment (Doc. No. 14)“Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s Motion for Modification of Judgment [Doc. No. 14].” | agree with court The court correctly identified that the motion was filed outside the 28-day window for Rule 59(e) relief. It appropriately construed the motion as a Rule 60(b) motion due to the petitioner's pro se status. The denial under Rule 60(b) is supported by the record because the petitioner failed to allege any of the specific grounds required by the rule (such as mistake, newly discovered evidence, or fraud) and instead attempted to raise new arguments and requests for jurisdiction over state court matters that were not part of the original habeas petition. The court's rejection of the supplemental jurisdiction argument is legally sound, as federal habeas courts do not exercise jurisdiction over state law claims or state court proceedings. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally and substantively sound. It correctly applies the strict time limits of Rule 59(e) as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Banister. It appropriately exercises discretion to construe the motion under Rule 60(b) for a pro se litigant. The analysis under Rule 60(b) is sufficient because it identifies the lack of specific grounds required by the rule and correctly rejects the petitioner's attempt to use the motion to raise new, unrelated requests for jurisdiction over state court proceedings. The citation to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) correctly limits the scope of federal habeas jurisdiction to federal constitutional or statutory violations, thereby negating the petitioner's request for supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ALEXANDER ROBERT JACOME, Case No.: 3:25-cv-1128-BEN-DDL 12 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 13 v. MODIFICATION OF JUDGMENT 14 GAVIN NEWSOM, [Doc. No. 14]
15 Respondent. 16 17 BACKGROUND 18 On May 1, 2025, Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for 19 Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, along with a request to proceed in 20 forma pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Doc. Nos. 1 & 2. On July 14, 21 2025, Petitioner was granted IFP status but his habeas petition was dismissed for failure to 22 state a cognizable claim for relief under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases 23 (“Habeas Rules”), which provides for summary dismissal of a habeas petition “[i]f it 24 plainly appears from the face of the petition and any attached exhibits that the petition is 25 not entitled to relief in the district court. . ..” Rule 4, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. Specifically, 26 the Court determined Petitioner is not presently entitled to habeas relief because he has not 27 alleged the state court violated his federal rights. See Doc. No. 8 at 2–3. The Court also 28 noted that Petitioner could not simply amend his petition to state a federal claim because 1 he must first exhaust those claims in state court. Id. at 3–4. Thus, the Court dismissed the 2 action and entered judgment. Doc. Nos. 8, 9. 3 After judgment was entered, Petitioner filed a Motion to Amend/Correct and Motion 4 to Reopen Case on July 28, 2025. Doc. No. 10. Thereafter, he filed a supplemental 5 document. Doc. No. 11. On September 26, 2026, the Court denied both motions because 6 Petitioner had failed to cure the defects outlined in the Court’s July 14, 2025 dismissal 7 order. See Doc. No. 12. 8 On November 28, 2025, Petitioner filed a “Rule 59 Motion for Modification of 9 Judgment.” Doc. No. 14. In it, Petitioner asks the Court modify the judgment and 10 “consolidate[] together” his criminal cases and appeals in state court. Id. at 5. He also asks 11 the Court to exercise “supplemental jurisdiction” over his state criminal cases under 28 12 U.S.C. § 1367. Id. at 4. 13 DISCUSSION 14 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) permits a party to file a “motion to alter or 15 amend a judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) “The time for doing so is short—28 days from 16 entry of the judgment, with no possibility of an extension.” Banister v. Davis, 590 U.S. 17 504, 507–08 (2020) (citing Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 6(b)(2)); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). 18 Here, judgment was entered on July 14, 2025 and as such, Petitioner’s November 28, 2025 19 Rule 59 Motion is untimely. Because Petitioner is proceeding pro se, however, the Court 20 will construe Plaintiff’s under Rule 60(b). See Aronson v. Dog Eat Dog Films, Inc., 738 F. 21 Supp. 2d 1104, 1120 (W.D. Wash. 2010) (“[T]he court may construe an untimely motion 22 for reconsideration brought under Rule 59(e) as a motion based on Rule 60(b).”). 23 Under Rule 60(b), a “court may relieve a party . . . from a final . . . order . . . for the 24 following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly 25 discovered evidence . . .; (3) fraud . . ., misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing 26 party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; 27 it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it 28 prospectively is no longer equitable; or (6) any other reason that justifies relief.” Fed. R. 1 || Civ. P. 60(b). “Motions for relief from judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b) are addressed to 2 ||the sound discretion of the district court.” Casey v. Albertson’s Inc., 362 F.3d 1254, 1257 3 Cir. 2004). 4 Here, Petitioner’s motion also fails under Rule 60(b) because Petitioner does not 5 || state adequate grounds for reconsideration. A motion for reconsideration “may not be used 6 || to raise arguments or present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have 7 || been raised earlier in the litigation.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Est. of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 8 || (9th Cir. 2000) (emphasis in original). And in his motion, Petitioner makes an entirely new 9 ||request that the Court to “consolidate” his state court criminal cases and exercise 10 || “supplemental jurisdiction” over them pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Doc. No. 14 at 1, 4. 1] First, the Court notes supplemental jurisdiction does not apply to federal habeas 12 || proceedings because, as previously discussed, this court has no federal habeas jurisdiction 13 || over any claims alleging violations of state law. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) (stating “‘a district 14 court shall entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person in 15 || custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody 16 violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States”). 17 Furthermore, Petitioner sets forth no specific basis for reconsideration based on 18 mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. Nor does he present any newly 19 || discovered evidence, or assert fraud by the Respondent, voiding or satisfaction of the 20 ||judgment, or any other reason justifying relief. As such, Petitioner has failed to show that 21 reconsideration is warranted under Rule 60(b). 22 Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s Motion for 23 || Modification of Judgment [Doc. No. 14]. The Clerk shall close the file. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. ° 25 || Dated: March 11, 2026 26 Hon. Roger T. Benitez 07 United States District Judge 28