Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01204/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01204-0/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 (federal)

---

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

- 1 - 07CV1204-BEN(WMc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRANCISCO ARIAS GUERRERO,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 07CV1204-BEN(WMc)

ORDER DENYING

PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION

[Docket No. 5]

vs.

ALBERTO R. GONZALEZ, et al.,

Respondents.

____________________________________

On July 2, 2007, Petitioner Francisco Arias Guerrero (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition for

Emergency Application for Stay of Removal pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(2). This Court denied

that request on July 13, 2007. Petitioner now seeks a Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s July

13, 2007, Order. For the reasons stated below, the Court denies the motion.

Petitioner asks this Court to reconsider its previous order under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e).

Reconsideration under Rule 59(e) “is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with newly

discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if

there is an intervening change in controlling law.” School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v.

ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993) (citing All Hawaii Tours, Corp. v. Polynesian

Cultural Center, 116 F.R.D. 645, 648 (D. Hawaii 1987), rev'd on other grounds, 855 F.2d 860 (9th

Cir.1988)). None of these circumstances apply here, Petitioner merely seeks for this Court to change

its mind in Petitioner’s favor. The Petitioner presents no newly discovered evidence to justify

Case 3:07-cv-01204-BEN-WMC Document 10 Filed 08/20/07 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

- 2 - 07CV1204-BEN(WMc)

reconsideration. Similarly, the Court finds that Rule 60(b) has no application here either. Rule 60(b)

allows the Court to relieve a party from final judgment on the basis of “(1) mistake, inadvertence,

surprise or excusable neglect; ....(6) or any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the

judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). This has not been shown and does not apply. 

Furthermore, Local Civil Rule 7.1.i requires a party seeking reconsideration to show “what

new or different facts and circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist, or were not shown,

upon such prior application.” Petitioner has failed to fulfill this procedural requirement. Petitioner’s

Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. No. 5) is therefore DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 20, 2007

Hon. Roger T. Benitez

United States District Judge

cc: All parties and respective counsel 

 

Case 3:07-cv-01204-BEN-WMC Document 10 Filed 08/20/07 Page 2 of 2