Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01065/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01065-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARK DAVE HILL, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

H. A. RIOS, )

)

Respondent. )

____________________________________)

1:10-CV-01065 GSA HC 

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S

MOTION FOR TO ALTER AND AMEND

JUDGMENT

[Doc. #9]

Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. He has voluntarily consented to exercise of Magistrate Judge

jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1).

On June 29, 2010, this Court dismissed the petition with prejudice and entered judgment for

Respondent. On July 15, 2010, Petitioner filed the instant motion to amend or alter judgment

pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

DISCUSSION

A motion for reconsideration pursuant to Rule 59(e) "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." 389 Orange St.

Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir.1999) (citing School Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5

U.S. District Court

E. D. California cd 1

Case 1:10-cv-01065-GSA Document 10 Filed 07/20/10 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir.1993)); see also 11 Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice and

Procedure § 2810.1 (2d ed.1995): 

Since specific grounds for a motion to amend or alter are not listed in the rule, the

district court enjoys considerable discretion in granting or denying the motion. 

However, reconsideration of a judgment after its entry is an extraordinary remedy

which should be used sparingly. There are four basic grounds upon which a

Rule 59(e) motion may be granted. First, the movant may demonstrate that the 

motion is necessary to correct manifest errors of law or fact upon which the

judgment is based. Second, the motion may be granted so that the moving party

may present newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence. Third, the 

motion will be granted if necessary to prevent manifest injustice.... Fourth, a 

Rule 59(e) motion may be justified by an intervening change in controlling law.

Petitioner’s motion is based on a decision by the United States District Court for the Southern

Division of the District of Maryland in Poole v. Dotson, 469 F.Supp.2d 329 (S.D. Md. 2007), rev’d

United States v. Poole, 531 F.3d 263 (4 Cir.2008). Petitioner contends his case is analogous, and th

therefore, the Court should find jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner fails to show cause

for relief under Rule 59(e). First, a district court decision from another circuit is not controlling.

Second, the decision Petitioner relies on was reversed by the Fourth Circuit. Third, Petitioner fails to

demonstrate that he qualifies under the savings clause. He fails to show that he has never had a

procedural opportunity to present his claims, and he fails to demonstrate that he is factually innocent

of the underlying crime. Therefore, Petitioner’s motion must be DENIED.

ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion to amend or alter judgment 

pursuant to Fed. R. Civil Proc. § 59(e) is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: July 20, 2010 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

6i0kij UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

U.S. District Court

E. D. California cd 2

Case 1:10-cv-01065-GSA Document 10 Filed 07/20/10 Page 2 of 2