Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-04763/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-04763-1/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)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

No. C 09-04763 RS (PR)

ORDER DENYING RULE 59 MOTION

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

 *E-Filed 2/10/16*

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

DION DAVIS,

Petitioner,

v.

D. G. ADAMS, Warden, 

Respondent. /

No. C 09-04763 RS (PR)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

ALTER OR AMEND THE

JUDGMENT

This is a closed federal habeas corpus action. The petition was denied and judgment

was entered in favor of respondent on December 22, 2010. (Docket Nos. 16 and 17.)

Petitioner did not file a Notice of Appeal. On January 28, 2016, he filed a motion under Rule

59(e) to alter or amend the judgment, which the Court now addresses. 

“Under Rule 59(e), it is appropriate to alter or amend a judgment if ‘(1) the district

court is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) the district court committed clear

error or made an initial decision that was manifestly unjust, or (3) there is an intervening

change in controlling law.’” United Nat. Ins. Co. v. Spectrum Worldwide, Inc., 555 F.3d 772,

780 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Zimmerman v. City of Oakland, 255 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir.

2001)). A Rule 59(e) motion must be filed no later than twenty-eight days after judgment. 

Case 3:09-cv-04763-RS Document 19 Filed 02/10/16 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

No. C 09-04763 RS (PR)

2 ORDER DENYING RULE 59 MOTION

Petitioner’s Rule 59(e) motion is DENIED. First, it is untimely. Judgment was

entered on December 22, 2010. To be timely, a Rule 59(e) motion had to be filed no later

than twenty-eight days later, that is on January 19, 2011. The instant motion was filed on

January 28, 2016, which is far beyond this deadline.

Second, he offers no grounds for relief. His motion contains formulaic recitations of

legal standards but no specific reasons justifying the granting of relief under Rule 59(e). The

Clerk shall terminate Docket No. 18. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 10, 2016 

 RICHARD SEEBORG

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-04763-RS Document 19 Filed 02/10/16 Page 2 of 2