Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01784/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01784-1/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 

19cv1784 - MMA (RBB) 

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 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ERICA D. HAYWOOD, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

SAN DIEGO SHERIFF, et al., 

Respondents. 

 Case No. 19cv1784 - MMA (RBB) 

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S 

MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION 

[Doc. No. 7] 

 On September 16, 2019, Petitioner Erica D. Haywood (“Petitioner”) filed a petition 

for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See Doc. No. 1. On September 

24, 2019, the Court denied Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and 

dismissed the petition without prejudice. See Doc. No. 3. Petitioner now moves the 

Court to reconsider its order.1

 See Doc. No. 7. For the reasons set forth below, the Court 

DENIES Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration. 

LEGAL STANDARD

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), district courts have the power to 

reconsider a previous ruling or entry of judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). A Rule 59(e) 

                                               

1

 Petitioner contemporaneously filed a notice of appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the 

Ninth Circuit. See Doc. No. 8. 

Case 3:19-cv-01784-MMA-RBB Document 10 Filed 10/10/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2 

19cv1784 - MMA (RBB) 

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

motion seeks “a substantive change of mind by the court.” Tripati v. Henman, 845 F.2d 

205, 205 (9th Cir. 1988). Rule 59(e) provides an “extraordinary remedy” and, in the 

interest of finality and conservation of judicial resources, such a motion should not be 

granted absent highly unusual circumstances. Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 

(9th Cir. 2003); McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 1255 (9th Cir. 1999). Rule 59(e) 

“may not be used to relitigate old matters, or to raise arguments or present evidence that 

could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment.” Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 

U.S. 471, 485 n.5 (2008) (quoting 11 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and 

Procedure § 2810.1, pp. 127–28 (2d ed.1995)). 

Under Rule 59(e), it is appropriate to alter or amend a previous ruling or judgment 

if “(1) the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) the district court 

committed clear error or made an initial decision that was manifestly unjust, or (3) there 

is an intervening change in controlling law.” United Nat. Ins. Co. v. Spectrum 

Worldwide, Inc., 555 F.3d 772, 780 (9th Cir. 2009). To carry the burden of proof, a 

moving party seeking reconsideration must show more than a disagreement with the 

Court’s decision or a recapitulation of the cases and arguments previously considered by 

the court. See United States v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F. Supp. 2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. 

Cal. 2001). 

DISCUSSION

 To the extent the Court can decipher the partially illegible motion, the Court finds 

that Petitioner has not met her burden to attain relief under the extraordinary remedy of 

Rule 59(e). Petitioner fails to present the Court with new evidence, demonstrate that the 

Court committed clear error, or point the Court to a change in law. Rather, Petitioner 

merely disagrees with the Court’s order and restates her previous claims. Such argument 

is insufficient to meet the heavy burden required by Rule 59(e). As previously noted, 

Case 3:19-cv-01784-MMA-RBB Document 10 Filed 10/10/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3 

19cv1784 - MMA (RBB) 

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

Petitioner’s § 2254 petition is barred by the abstention doctrine and should have been 

brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983.2

 See Doc. No. 3. 

CONCLUSION

Having reviewed its previous ruling, the Court is satisfied that it committed no 

error. Petitioner has not carried her burden under Rule 59(e) to demonstrate otherwise. 

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: October 10, 2019 ________________________________________ 

 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO 

 United States District Judge 

                                               

2

 In fact, Petitioner filed a § 1983 action in this District on October 9, 2019. See Complaint, Haywood v. 

U.C. San Diego et al. (S.D. Cal. 2019) (No. 3:19-cv-1955 MMA (BGS)). 

Case 3:19-cv-01784-MMA-RBB Document 10 Filed 10/10/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3