Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_04-cv-00420/USCOURTS-casd-3_04-cv-00420-2/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

1

 The Court construes Petitioner’s Motion to Vacate Judgment as a Motion for Reconsideration.

- 1 - 04cv0420-BEN (BLM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DARNELL JOHNSON,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 04CV420-BEN (BLM)

ORDER DENYING

PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION

[Docket No. 59]

vs.

JEANNE WOODFORD, Warden,

Respondent.

Petitioner DARNELL JOHNSON (“Petitioner”) filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus

under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (“Petition”), challenging his state court conviction for first degree murder.

On January 12, 2007, Honorable Magistrate Judge Barbara L. Major issued a thoughtful and

thorough Report and Recommendation (“Report”), recommending the Petition be denied in its

entirety. On May 07, 2007, this Court adopted the Report and denied the Petition in its entirety. 

Petitioner now seeks a Motion for Reconsideration1

 of the Court’s May 07, 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)

Case 3:04-cv-00420-BEN-BLM Document 60 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 - 04cv0420-BEN (BLM)

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 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. 59) 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 3:04-cv-00420-BEN-BLM Document 60 Filed 08/20/07 Page 2 of 2