Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00439/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00439-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
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 - 07CV0439 BEN (AJB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DANIEL CARRERA-VIRULA,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 07CV0439 BEN (AJB)

ORDER DENYING

PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION [D.E. 7]

vs.

ALBERTO GONZALES, et al.,

Respondents

On March 8, 2007, Petitioner Daniel Carrera-Virula (“Petitioner”) proceeding pro se filed a

petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner also sought appointment

of counsel, which the Court denied on August 20, 2007. Petitioner now seeks a Motion to Reconsider

the Court’s August 20, 2007, Order denying appointment of counsel. For the reasons that follow,

Petitioner’s Motion to Reconsider is DENIED.

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

Case 3:07-cv-00439-BEN-AJB Document 8 Filed 08/29/07 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 - 07CV0439 BEN (AJB)

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. 7) is therefore DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 29, 2007

Hon. Roger T. Benitez

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-00439-BEN-AJB Document 8 Filed 08/29/07 Page 2 of 2