Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_17-cv-08279/USCOURTS-azd-3_17-cv-08279-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Joe Cervantes, Jr.,

Petitioner,

v. 

Charles L Ryan, et al.,

Respondents.

No. CV-17-08279-PCT-DLR

ORDER 

On May 6, 2019, the Court denied Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus as 

untimely and entered judgment accordingly. (Docs. 27, 28.) Petitioner subsequently filed 

two motions: (1) a “Demand for Payment” (Doc. 29), which is denied as meritless and (2) 

a motion to alter or amend the judgment (Doc. 32). Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

59(e), a party can move the Court to amend its judgment within 28 days of entry. Amending 

a judgment after entry is “an extraordinary remedy which should be used sparingly.” See 

Allstate Ins. Co. v. Herron, 634 F.3d 1101, 1111 (9th Cir. 2011) (citation and quotation 

omitted). There are four basic grounds upon which a Rule 59(e) motion generally may be 

granted: (1) to correct manifest errors of law or fact upon which the judgment rests; (2) in 

response to newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence; (3) to prevent a manifest 

injustice; and (4) if an intervening change in controlling law undermines the judgment. 

Petitioner anchors his motion in this first category, arguing that the Court’s judgment rested 

on manifest errors of law or fact. None of the arguments he raises, however, undermine 

Case 3:17-cv-08279-DLR Document 36 Filed 03/16/20 Page 1 of 2
- 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

the Court’s determination that his habeas petition was untimely. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s “Demand for Payment” (Doc. 29) and motion 

to alter or amend the judgment (Doc. 32) are DENIED.

Dated this 16th day of March, 2020.

Douglas L. Rayes

United States District Judge

Case 3:17-cv-08279-DLR Document 36 Filed 03/16/20 Page 2 of 2