Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 AMAH MBACHAM INNOCENT, Case No.: 26-cv-4815-RSH-BJW 12 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 13 v. ALTER JUDGMENT 14 WARDEN, Imperial Regional Adult [ECF No. 11] Detention Facility, et al., 15 Respondents. 16 17 18 Before the Court is Petitioner’s motion to alter judgment pursuant to Federal Rule 19 of Civil Procedure 59(e). ECF No. 11. For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies the 20 motion. 21 I. BACKGROUND 22 On August 24, 2026, petitioner Amah Mbacham Innocent, proceeding pro se, filed 23 a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (the “Petition”) and a 24 motion for a temporary restraining order. ECF Nos. 1, 2. On September 8, 2026, the Court 25 denied the petition, concluding that Petitioner’s claim, to the extent it was based on the 26 duration of his detention alone, was foreclosed by Ninth Circuit authority and that any 27 challenge to the immigration judge’s bond determination remained unexhausted. ECF No. 28 8 at 3–5. A judgment was entered on the same day. ECF No. 9. On September 14, 2026, 1 Plaintiff filed the instant motion to alter judgment. ECF No. 11. 2 II. LEGAL STANDARD 3 “Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) provides that a party may file a ‘motion to 4 alter or amend a judgment’ within ‘28 days after the entry of the judgment.’” Kaufmann v. 5 Kijakazi, 32 F.4th 843, 850 (9th Cir. 2022) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)). “[A] Rule 59(e) 6 motion is an extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of finality and 7 conservation of judicial resources.” Wood v. Ryan, 759 F.3d 1117, 1121 (9th Cir. 2014) 8 (internal quotation marks omitted). “Indeed, a motion for reconsideration should not be 9 granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with 10 newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in 11 the controlling law.” Kona Enters. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000) 12 (internal quotation marks omitted). 13 III. ANALYSIS 14 In the instant Motion, Petitioner argues that the Court committed clear error by 15 treating his claim as either a challenge based on the duration of his detention alone or an 16 unexhausted challenge to the immigration judge’s bond determination. ECF No. 11 at 5– 17 8. Plaintiff argues his petition instead presented a constitutional challenge based on the 18 circumstances of his continued detention, including its duration, his medical and family 19 circumstances, and the effectiveness of ongoing administrative review. Id. at 5–9, 15–16. 20 Petitioner requests that the Court reopen this action and adjudicate his claim for immediate 21 release or, alternatively, require a supplemental return addressing his current detention and 22 the status of his administrative appeals. Id. at 14–17. 23 Petitioner has not met the high threshold for altering or amending the judgment here. 24 Instead, Petitioner’s motion largely reiterates his contention that his petition presented a 25 constitutional challenge to his continued detention rather than a challenge to the 26 immigration judge’s bond determination. Compare e.g., ECF No. 1 at 12 (“The present 27 Petition starts where that order ended: the required hearing occurred, release was denied, 28 administrative review was invoked, and detention continued to approximately 380 days. 1 This Petition asks whether those later events and accumulated duration now make 2 continued physical incarceration unconstitutional.”) with ECF No. 11 at 16 (“Petitioner 3 asks the Court to consider the pleaded combination of extended custody, the effectiveness 4 of ongoing review, the particular harms of waiting, and the practicability of supervision.”). 5 The Court expressly acknowledged Petitioner’s contention that his continued detention had 6 become unconstitutional in light of both the passage of time and his individualized 7 circumstances in its September 8, 2026 order. See ECF No. 8 at 2–3. In that order, the 8 Court concluded that, to the extent Petitioner’s claim rested on duration alone, it was 9 foreclosed by Rodriguez Diaz v. Garland, 53 F.4th 1189 (9th Cir. 2022), and that, to the 10 extent Petitioner relied on his lack of criminal history, sponsor and family support, and 11 medical condition to establish that continued detention was unwarranted, his claim 12 challenged the immigration judge’s bond determination in substance and remained 13 unexhausted. Id. at 3–4. 14 Petitioner’s disagreement with the Court’s construction of his petition does not, 15 without more, establish clear error. “Rule 59(e) permits a court to alter or amend a 16 judgment, but it may not be used to relitigate old matters, or to raise arguments or present 17 evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment.” Exxon Shipping Co. 18 v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471, 485 n.5 (2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). Merely 19 reasserting arguments the Court has already considered does not warrant reconsideration 20 in this case. Beaver v. Tarsadia Hotels, 29 F. Supp. 3d 1294, 1301–02 (S.D. Cal. 2014) 21 (“A motion for reconsideration cannot be used to ask the Court to rethink what the Court 22 has already thought through merely because a party disagrees with the Court’s decision.”); 23 Norris v. Youngblood, No. 1:21-CV-0904 JLT HBK, 2023 WL 4565062, at *2 (E.D. Cal. 24 July 17, 2023) (“[M]ere disagreement with a Court’s ruling is insufficient to warrant 25 reconsideration.”); Kraft v. Tulare Cnty., No. 121CV00768JLTSKO, 2023 WL 2918658, 26 at *2 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 12, 2023) (denying motion for reconsideration where “Plaintiff 27 merely disputes the findings of the Court and presents the same arguments he offered 28 earlier and which the Court rejected”). 1 CONCLUSION 2 For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs motion. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 || Dated: September 18, 2026 ‘ 6 Hon. Robert S. Huie United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28