Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-00708/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-00708-2/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

09cv708 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARK McLEAN SAUNDERS,

Petitioner,

v.

V.M. ALMAGER,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 09cv708 L (WMc)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION [doc. #26];

DENYING AS MOOT REQUEST

FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO

FILE OBJECTIONS TO THE

REPORT [doc. #24]; and

REFERRING MATTER TO THE

MAGISTRATE JUDGE

On September 16, 2010, the magistrate judge filed a Report and Recommendation

(“Report”) in this action which seeks a writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner moves for

reconsideration because of a factual discrepancy in the Report. Specifically, the Report twice

states that petitioner did not file a traverse to respondent’s answer when in fact petitioner timely

filed his traverse on December 16, 2009. (See Report at 21 and 25; Traverse [doc. #21].) 

Civil Local Rule 7.1(i) allows parties to file motions for reconsideration. Under that local

rule, 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. . . ." Civ. L. R. 7.1(i)(1). A party 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. A timely-filed motion for reconsideration under a local rule is considered a

motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). Schroeder v. McDonald, 55 F.3d 454, 459

Case 3:09-cv-00708-L-WMC Document 32 Filed 10/20/10 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 09cv708 

(9th Cir. 1995). 

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 the controlling law." School Dist. No. 1J,

Multnomah County, Oregon v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). A Rule 59(e)

motion "should not be granted[] absent highly unusual circumstances." 389 Orange St. Partners

v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999).

Here, it is clear that the Report suffers from a clear factual error: petitioner timely filed a

traverse that should have been considered in the preparation of the Report. Accordingly, IT IS

ORDERED:

1. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration is GRANTED. 

2. The magistrate judge shall prepare a Report taking into account the entire record in

this case, including petitioner’s traverse. 

3. Petitioner’s request for an enlargement of time to file objections to the Report is

DENIED AS MOOT.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: October 20, 2010

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

COPY TO: 

HON. WILLIAM McCURINE, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL

Case 3:09-cv-00708-L-WMC Document 32 Filed 10/20/10 Page 2 of 2