Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00721/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00721-2/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

16-cv-0721-AJB-MDD

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

PATRICK STANLEY PAWLICKI,

Petitioner,

v.

DANIEL PARAMO, Warden,

Respondent.

Case No.: 16-cv-0721-AJB-MDD

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S 

MOTION TO RECONSIDER

(Doc. Nos. 67, 69)

Before the Court is Petitioner Patrick Stanley Pawlicki’s petition for leave of Court 

to file FRCP Rule 59(e) motion to reconsider, (Doc. No. 67), and a letter with Pawlicki’s 

points and authorities in support of FRCP Rule 59(e) motion to reconsider, (Doc. No. 69). 

The Court construes both these motions as a motion to reconsider the Court’s Order 

adopting Magistrate Judge Dembin’s Report and Recommendation and overruling 

Pawlicki’s objections. For the reasons discussed herein, the Court DENIES Pawlicki’s 

motion for reconsideration. 

I. BACKGROUND

On November 3, 2017, Magistrate Judge Dembin issued an extensive and thorough 

ninety-eight page Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that the Court 

deny Pawlicki’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. (Doc. No. 60.) On November 20, 

Case 3:16-cv-00721-AJB-MDD Document 70 Filed 10/21/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

16-cv-0721-AJB-MDD

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

2017, Pawlicki filed his Objection to the R&R. (Doc. No. 61.) On July 2, 2018, this Court 

adopted the R&R, overruled Pawlicki’s objections, denied the petition for writ of habeas 

corpus, declined to issue a certificate of appealability, and dismissed as moot Pawlicki’s

motion for leave to exhaust claims. (Doc. No. 64.) Pawlicki then filed the instant motion 

for reconsideration. (Doc. Nos. 67, 69.)

II. LEGAL STANDARD

A motion to alter judgment is brought under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). 

See Miller v. Transamerican Press, Inc., 709 F.2d 524, 527 (9th Cir. 1983). An amendment 

to a judgment is appropriate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) 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.” Zimmerman v. City of Oakland, 255 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing 

School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993)). 

The Ninth Circuit has recognized that in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial 

resources, Rule 59(e) is an “extraordinary remedy to be used sparingly.” Kona Enter., Inc. 

v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000).

In addition, Local Civil Rule 7.1(i)(1) states that a party may apply for 

reconsideration “[w]henever any motion or any application or petition for any order or 

other relief has been made to any judge and has been refused in whole or in part . . . .” S.D. 

Cal. CivLR 7.1. The party seeking reconsideration must show “what new or different facts 

and circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist, or were not shown, upon such 

prior application.” Id.

III. DISCUSSION

Pawlicki’s motion for reconsideration yet again re-argues his beliefs that the trial 

judge engaged in outrageous conduct, the trial judge was unreasonable, that attorney 

Pacello misled the court regarding his experience, that he was provided with ineffective 

assistance of counsel, that Pawlicki is actually innocent, and that he was denied his choice 

of counsel. (See generally Doc. Nos. 67, 69.) The Court previously held that Pawlicki’s 

Case 3:16-cv-00721-AJB-MDD Document 70 Filed 10/21/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

16-cv-0721-AJB-MDD

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

objections were not entitled to de novo review since Pawlicki simply repeated the 

arguments made in his Petition that were already analyzed by Magistrate Judge Dembin in 

the R&R. (Doc. No. 64 at 10.) Pawlicki again utilizes his motion for reconsideration to 

simply re-argue the same issues presented in his Petition. Pawlicki has failed to present the 

Court with newly discovered evidence, to establish that the Court committed clear error or 

made an initial decision that was manifestly unjust, or that there is an intervening change 

in controlling law. See Zimmerman, 255 F.3d at 740 (citing School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah 

Cty., 5 F.3d at 1263).

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Pawlicki’s motion for reconsideration in its 

entirety. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 18, 2019

Case 3:16-cv-00721-AJB-MDD Document 70 Filed 10/21/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

16-cv-0721-AJB-MDD

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

Case 3:16-cv-00721-AJB-MDD Document 70 Filed 10/21/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4