Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02186/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02186-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
Cause of Action: 28:2241fd Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)

---

1

3:18-cv-02186-H-NLS

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

AMARJIT SINGH,

Petitioner,

v.

GREG ARCHAMBEAULT; et al.,

Respondents.

Case No.: 3:18-cv-02186-H-NLS

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S 

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

[Doc. No. 10] 

On September 20, 2018, Petitioner Amarjit Singh, a detainee in custody of the U.S. 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. No. 1.) Petitioner contends that he is being detained indefinitely, 

in violation of Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001). On November 26, 2018, 

Respondents filed a response. (Doc. No. 7.) On December 21, 2018, Petitioner filed a reply. 

(Doc No. 8.) On February 1, 2019, the Court continued the case for six months and ordered 

Respondents to provide an update regarding Petitioner’s removal status by August 1, 2019. 

(Doc. No. 9.) The Court concluded that Petitioner had not yet established that there was no 

significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future, and continued the 

case in order to monitor the status of Petitioner’s removal. (Id.) 

Case 3:18-cv-02186-H-NLS Document 12 Filed 02/20/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

3:18-cv-02186-H-NLS

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

On February 15, 2019, Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s 

order continuing the case. (Doc. No. 10.) A district court has inherent jurisdiction to 

modify, alter, or revoke a prior order. United States v. Martin, 226 F.3d 1042, 1049 (9th 

Cir. 2000). “Reconsideration [of a prior order] 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 v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). Reconsideration should 

be used conservatively, because it is an “extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the 

interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 

934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & 

Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (“‘[A] motion for reconsideration should not be 

granted, absent highly unusual circumstances . . . .’”). A motion for reconsideration may 

not be used to relitigate old matters, or to raise arguments or present evidence for the first 

time that reasonably could have been raised earlier in the litigation. Exxon Shipping Co. v. 

Baker, 554 U.S. 471, 486 n.5 (2008); see Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 

877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000) (“A [motion for reconsideration] may not be used to raise 

arguments or present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been 

raised earlier in the litigation.”). “A party seeking reconsideration must show more than a 

disagreement with the Court’s decision.” United States v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F. 

Supp. 2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001); accord Huhmann v. FedEx Corp., No. 13-CV00787-BAS NLS, 2015 WL 6128494, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 16, 2015).

After reviewing Petitioner’s arguments, the Court concludes that his motion for 

reconsideration of the Court’s order continuing this case should be denied. Petitioner 

argues that a six-month continuance of a habeas petition is too lengthy. (Doc. No. 10 at 3–

4.) However, “[a] trial court has the inherent authority to control its own docket and 

calendar.” Zhao v. Kelly, No. CV 17-777-BRO (KES), 2017 WL 1591818, at *4 (C.D. Cal. 

Apr. 27, 2017) (citing Landis v. N. American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254–55 (1936)). This 

includes the authority to stay an action pending developments in other proceedings. See

Case 3:18-cv-02186-H-NLS Document 12 Filed 02/20/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

3:18-cv-02186-H-NLS

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

Leyva v. Certified Grocers of Cal. Ltd., 593 F.2d 857, 863–64 (9th Cir. 1979). “This rule 

applies whether the separate proceedings are judicial, administrative, or arbitral in 

character, and does not require that the issues in such proceedings are necessarily 

controlling of the action before the court.” Id. The Court acknowledges that “habeas 

proceedings implicate special considerations that place unique limits on a district court’s 

authority to stay a case in the interests of judicial economy.” Yong v. I.N.S., 208 F.3d 1116, 

1120 (9th Cir. 2000). The Ninth Circuit permits continuances in habeas cases, but does not 

authorize “in the interests of judicial economy, an indefinite, potentially lengthy stay in a 

habeas case.” Id. at 1120. Here, the Court concludes that limiting the continuance to six 

months is sufficiently definite and respects the special circumstances of habeas 

proceedings. See Zhao, 2017 WL 1591818, at *4 (staying § 2241 habeas case for 3 months 

while awaiting travel documents from Chinese government).

In his motion for reconsideration, Petitioner also asks the Court to grant his petition, 

reiterating the arguments made in his habeas petition. (Doc. No. 10 at 4–6.) However, a 

motion for reconsideration should not merely present arguments previously raised in an 

attempt to reargue or relitigate the Court’s prior decision. See Exxon Shipping, 554 U.S. at 

486 n.5 (a motion for reconsideration “may not be used to relitigate old matters”); 

Westlands Water Dist., 134 F. Supp. 2d at 1131 (“A reconsideration motion should not 

merely present arguments previously raised, or which could have been raised . . . . ‘A 

motion for reconsideration is not a vehicle to reargue the motion . . . .’”).

Accordingly, for the reasons above, the Court denies Petitioner’s motion for 

reconsideration of the Court’s February 1, 2019 order continuing the case and ordering 

Respondents to file a status update on or before August 1, 2019.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 20, 2019

 

MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 3:18-cv-02186-H-NLS Document 12 Filed 02/20/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3