Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-00981/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-00981-4/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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JOSELUIS MORALES,

Plaintiff,

v.

CONNIE GIPSON,

Defendant.

Case No. 12-cv-00981-WHO (PR) 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

ALTER OR AMEND THE 

JUDGMENT

Dkt. No. 28

INTRODUCTION 

Petitioner Joseluis Morales’s motion to alter or amend the judgment is denied 

because Ninth Circuit precedent forecloses his habeas claims. 

BACKGROUND 

This is a closed federal habeas corpus action. Morales challenged the 

constitutionality of California Penal Code section 2933.6 because it rendered him, as a 

validated associate of a prison gang, ineligible for various time credits. His equal 

protection claim was foreclosed by Nevarez v. Barnes, 749 F.3d 1124 (9th Cir. 2014), 

where the Ninth Circuit, sitting in federal habeas review, explicitly rejected an ex post 

facto challenge to section 2933.6. Id. at 1128. I denied his habeas petition, which 

asserted ex post facto, equal protection, and double jeopardy claims, declined to issue a 

certificate of appealability, and entered judgment in favor of respondent on September 2, 

Case 3:12-cv-00981-WHO Document 29 Filed 04/23/15 Page 1 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

2014. Morales then timely filed his motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). 

(Docket No. 28.) 

STANDARD OF REVIEW 

 Where, as here, the Court’s ruling has resulted in a final judgment or order, a 

motion for reconsideration may be based on Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure. “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, 779 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Zimmerman v. City of Oakland, 255 F.3d 734, 

740 (9th Cir. 2001)). 

DISCUSSION 

Morales asserts that the judgment should be altered or amended, and a certificate of 

appealability issued, because my decision conflicts with Ninth Circuit precedent, I 

erroneously rejected his equal protection claim, and the state supreme court’s denial of my 

petition was “not on the merits.” (Pet.’s Mot. to Alter or Amend (“MAA”) at 2-5.) None 

of these contentions shows that there is newly discovered evidence, or that I committed 

clear error or made an unjust decision, or that there was an intervening change in 

controlling law. 

I. Ninth Circuit Precedent

I rejected Morales’s claims because they were foreclosed by Nevarez. Morales 

claims that Nevarez is in conflict with an older Ninth Circuit decision, Himes v. Thompson, 

336 F.3d 848 (9th Cir. 2003). He contends that the “Nevarez court did not analyze the 

claim in the same manner [as] . . . the Himes court, causing here a disagreement that 

requires [a certificate of appealability] for the Ninth Circuit to clarify both of these cases.” 

(MAA at 2.) He alleges that neither the Ninth Circuit nor this Court considered that the 

statute applied retroactively. (Id.) 

Morales’s contentions lack merit. First, Himes is not on point. It addressed an 

Case 3:12-cv-00981-WHO Document 29 Filed 04/23/15 Page 2 of 4
3

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

Northern District of California

Oregon statute relating to parole. Nevarez addresses the same California statute relating to 

the acquisition of time credits that Morales challenges. I must follow Nevarez because it is 

squarely on point. 

Second, I previously considered the issue of retroactivity when I addressed 

Morales’s ex post facto claim. By their very nature, ex post facto claims relate to the 

retroactive application of laws. 

II. Ruling on Equal Protection

Morales’s equal protection contentions simply repeat the issues raised in his 

petition. (MAA at 3-4.) I considered and rejected these arguments in the Order Denying 

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Morales has not shown any reason that I should alter 

my decision. 

III. State Court Decisions 

Morales contends that the state supreme court’s summary denial of his habeas 

petition was not on the merits. (MAA at 4-5.) I assume that Morales is arguing that the 

deferential AEDPA standard does not apply and I should conduct a de novo review of his 

claims. 

A federal court must presume that a state court decision ruled on the merits of all 

the claims in the petition, even if the decision does not expressly say so. Johnson v. 

Williams, 133 S. Ct. 1088, 1096 (2013). While this presumption is rebuttable, Morales has 

not rebutted the presumption. He cites California cases that are older than Williams. I am 

bound to follow the United States Supreme Court’s latest word on this matter rather than 

older California state cases. 

CONCLUSION 

Morales’s motion to amend or alter the judgment (Docket No. 28) is DENIED. 

A certificate of appealability will not issue. Morales has not shown “that jurists of 

reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a 

constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district 

court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 

Case 3:12-cv-00981-WHO Document 29 Filed 04/23/15 Page 3 of 4
4

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

Northern District of California

The Clerk shall terminate Docket No. 28. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: April 23, 2015

_________________________ 

WILLIAM H. ORRICK 

United States District Judge

Case 3:12-cv-00981-WHO Document 29 Filed 04/23/15 Page 4 of 4