(HC) Rodriguez v. Fisher
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Michael M. Anello (author)
Analysis
The court considered a pro se habeas petitioner's second motion for reconsideration, request for leave to amend, and request for a certificate of appealability following the dismissal of his petition and the filing of a notice of appeal. The court denied the motion for reconsideration as improper and denied the other requests for lack of jurisdiction.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Denial of Second Motion for Reconsideration“the Court DENIES Petitioner’s motion for the same reasons stated in its October 17, 2022 Order where the Court denied Petitioner’s first motion for reconsideration.” | agree with court The decision follows from the procedural history recited in the order. The petitioner had already filed a first motion for reconsideration which was denied. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) generally prohibits successive motions for reconsideration. The order correctly identifies that the petitioner failed to identify specific errors in the prior judgment, which is a requirement for a valid Rule 59(e) motion. The court's reliance on the prior denial and the general prohibition on successive motions is legally sound. |
Denial of Request for Leave to Amend“the Court DENIES Petitioner’s requests for leave to amend and for certificate of appealability for lack of jurisdiction.” | agree with court The court correctly applies the general rule that the filing of a notice of appeal divests the district court of jurisdiction over the aspects of the case involved in the appeal. Since the petitioner filed a notice of appeal, the district court lacks jurisdiction to grant leave to amend the underlying petition. The request is properly directed to the Ninth Circuit. |
Denial of Request for Certificate of Appealability“the Court DENIES Petitioner’s requests for leave to amend and for certificate of appealability for lack of jurisdiction.” | agree with court Similar to the request for leave to amend, the district court lacks jurisdiction to issue a certificate of appealability once a notice of appeal has been filed. The court correctly notes that it had already declined to issue a COA in the initial dismissal order, and the subsequent filing of the notice of appeal further divests the district court of jurisdiction to act on this request. The petitioner must address this with the Ninth Circuit. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the procedural posture (second motion for reconsideration, notice of appeal filed). It applies the correct legal standards for denying successive Rule 59(e) motions (lack of specific error, prohibition on successive motions) and for denying post-appeal requests (divestiture of jurisdiction). The citations are appropriate and support the conclusions. The reasoning is concise but sufficient for a procedural order of this nature.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PEDRO RODRIGUEZ, Case No. 21-cv-1443-MMA (WVG)
12 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING 13 v. SECOND MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND OTHER 14 KATHLEEN ALLISON, Warden, MISCELLANEOUS REQUESTS 15 Respondent. [Doc. No. 69] 16 17 18 19 On August 9, 2021, Pedro Rodriguez (“Petitioner”), an inmate currently housed at 20 Vista Detention Facility in San Diego County and proceeding pro se, filed a habeas 21 corpus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (the “Petition”). See Doc. No. 1. On 22 August 9, 2022, Magistrate Judge William V. Gallo issued a detailed and well-reasoned 23 Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), recommending that the Court grant Respondent’s 24 motion and dismiss the Petition without leave to amend. See Doc. No. 51 at 12.1 On 25 September 21, 2022, the Court issued an Order adopting Judge Gallo’s R&R, granting 26 Respondent’s motion, and dismissing the Petition without leave to amend. Doc. No. 56. 27 28 1 On September 30, 2022, Petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal. Doc. No. 58. On October 2 12, 2022, Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration regarding the Court’s September 3 21, 2022 Order. Doc. No. 60 at 1. On October 17, 2022, the Court denied Petitioner’s 4 Motion for Reconsideration. Doc. No. 61. 5 Currently before the Court is Petitioner’s second motion for reconsideration 6 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), wherein he also requests leave to 7 amend and a certificate of appealability. Doc. No. 69. Plaintiff cannot file successive 8 motions for reconsideration and raise the same arguments or those that could have been 9 raised previously. See, e.g., Wages v. IRS, 915 F.2d 1230, 1233 n.3 (9th Cir. 1990); 10 Benson v. St. Joseph Reg’l Health Ctr., 575 F.3d 542, 547 (5th Cir. 2009) (holding that 11 successive Rule 59(e) motions are improper because “[w]ere such motions permitted, it is 12 conceivable that a dissatisfied litigant could continually seek reconsideration and prevent 13 finality of judgment”); see also Terry v. Quijote, No. 19-cv-00401-DKW-RT, 2020 U.S. 14 Dist. LEXIS 10124, at *3 (D. Haw. June 9, 2020), aff’d, 848 F. App’x 736 (9th Cir. 15 2021). Moreover, to the extent Petitioner requests that the Court reconsider its 16 September 21, 2022 Order, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s motion for the same reasons 17 stated in its October 17, 2022 Order where the Court denied Petitioner’s first motion for 18 reconsideration. See Doc. Nos. 56, 61. Here, Petitioner again does not identify any 19 specific error in the Court’s September 21, 2022 Order and appears to just be in general 20 disagreement with the Court’s ruling dismissing this case. See United States v. Westlands 21 Water Dist., 134 F. Supp. 2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001). These arguments are again 22 insufficient to alter or amend a judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e). Id.; see also Doc. No. 23 61 at 3. 24 Further, Petitioner has filed a Notice of Appeal. See Doc. Nos. 58, 59, 67 at 3 n.3. 25 It is “a general rule, [that] the filing of a notice of appeal divests a district court of 26 jurisdiction over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal.” Stein v. Wood, 127 27 F.3d 1187, 1189 (9th Cir. 1997). Moreover, the Court has already declined to issue a 28 certificate of appealability. See Doc. No. 56. Therefore, in light of the Court’s rulings, 1 || see Doc. Nos. 56, 57, 61, and Petitioner’s Notice of Appeal, see Doc. Nos. 58, 59, the 2 Court DENIES Petitioner’s requests for leave to amend and for certificate of 3 || appealability for lack of jurisdiction. Petitioner’s requests are more appropriately 4 addressed to the Ninth Circuit. See Fed. R. App. P. 22(b)(2). Therefore, Petitioner is 5 reminded once again that he filed a Notice of Appeal, see Doc. Nos. 58, 59, and all 6 || requests and/or motions relating to that appeal should be filed with the Ninth Circuit. See 7 No. 67 at 3 n.3. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 Dated: November 10, 2022 LMackuh le (lilt 10 United States District Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28