Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-02773/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-02773-5/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

CARLOS ARMANDO SALDANA,

Petitioner,

v.

MARION E. SPEARMAN, Warden,

Respondent.

Case No. 13-cv-02773-YGR (PR)

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S 

RULE 59(E) MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION

Petitioner, a former state prisoner, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 2254.

On September 24, 2014, the Court granted Respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition for 

failure to exhaust state court remedies because Petitioner did not present his claims to the State’s 

highest court—the California Supreme Court. Dkt. 17. The Court also denied Petitioner’s motion 

for leave to have another inmate, Laurince O’Sheigh Simpson, formally receive status as 

Petitioner’s “next friend” or as what he refers to as “Counsel Substitute.” Id. 

Thereafter, Petitioner filed the instant motion for reconsideration under Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 59(e). Dkt. 19. He also filed an addendum and a declaration in support of his 

Rule 59(e) motion. Dkts. 20, 20-1. Respondent filed a response to the Rule 59(e) motion. Dkt. 

22.

For the reasons outlined below, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s Rule 59(e) motion.

DISCUSSION

A motion for reconsideration under Rule 59(e) “‘should not be granted, absent highly 

unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, 

committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the law.’” McDowell v. Calderon, 

197 F.3d 1253, 1255 (9th Cir. 1999) (en banc). 

Evidence is not newly discovered for purposes of a Rule 59(e) motion if it was available 

prior to the district court’s ruling. See Ybarra v. McDaniel, 656 F.3d 984, 998 (9th Cir. 2011) 

(affirming district court’s denial of habeas petitioner’s motion for reconsideration where 

Case 4:13-cv-02773-YGR Document 24 Filed 07/10/15 Page 1 of 5
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

petitioner’s evidence of exhaustion was not “newly discovered” because petitioner was aware of 

such evidence almost one year prior to district court’s denial of petition). 

A district court does not commit clear error warranting reconsideration when the question 

before it is a debatable one. See McDowell, 197 F.3d at 1256 (district court did not abuse its 

discretion in denying reconsideration where question of whether it could enter protective order in 

habeas action limiting Attorney General’s use of documents from trial counsel’s file was 

debatable). 

Reconsideration is an “extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of 

finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 

877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). A district court has “considerable discretion” in deciding a Rule 59(e) 

motion. Turner v. Burlington N. Santa Fe R.R. Co., 338 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th Cir. 2003). 

Here, Petitioner argues in his Rule 59(e) motion that reconsideration is warranted because

the Court “misunderstood or misinterpreted” controlling law. Dkt. 19 at 2.1 However, Petitioner’s 

argument is unavailing because he confuses this Court’s determination that his claims are 

unexhausted with a determination of the merits of his claims. Specifically, in the argument section 

of his Rule 59(e) motion, Petitioner does not counter the Court’s finding that he failed to exhaust 

state court remedies for his claims. Instead, he argues that: (1) he has “rebut[ted] the presumption 

of correctness of the state determination of facts . . .” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1) as to the 

claims in his petition, id. at 5-6; (2) he has demonstrated his claims have merit, id. at 7-8; and 

(3) he has “cured the default issue the Court raised as to exhaustion” based on the conclusory 

argument that his claims have merit, id. at 9. The aforementioned reasons are insufficient because 

Petitioner fails to present any ground for reconsideration of this Court’s determination that he

failed to exhaust state court remedies. 

Meanwhile, in his addendum in support of his Rule 59(e) motion, Petitioner attempts to 

address the Court’s finding that not all state court remedies were exhausted before he filed his 

federal petition. Dkt. 20 at 5-8. As mentioned above, the Court found that the petition was 

 

1

Page number citations refer to those assigned by the Court’s electronic case management 

filing system and not those assigned by Petitioner.

Case 4:13-cv-02773-YGR Document 24 Filed 07/10/15 Page 2 of 5
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

unexhausted because Petitioner had not presented his claims to the California Supreme Court. 

Dkt. 17 at 6. Specifically, the Court noted that Petitioner failed to file a state habeas petition in the 

state supreme court, stating:

Petitioner should have brought his federal constitutional claims 

before the California Supreme Court in order to exhaust those 

claims in state court. The Court finds unavailing any argument that 

Petitioner exhausted his federal claims by filing a petition for writ of 

mandate, i.e., by including these claims as exhibits to his mandamus 

petition. Dkt. 10 at 3-5. The California Supreme Court’s denial of 

his petition for writ of mandate is not equivalent to a denial of a 

petition for writ of habeas corpus. For example, in denying the 

mandamus petition, the state supreme court did not consider the 

merits of Petitioner’s federal claims, as it would have if Petitioner 

had filed those claims in a state habeas petition. Thus, it is clear that 

Petitioner has not yet exhausted all available procedures if the state 

supreme court has not had an opportunity to review his federal 

claims. 

Id. In his addendum, Petitioner now seems to argue he could not, or was not required to, exhaust 

state court remedies by filing a state habeas petition in the California Supreme Court. Dkt. 20 at 

5-7. While Petitioner’s arguments in his addendum are difficult to decipher, it seems he is again 

attempting to argue that he exhausted his state court remedies by filing a mandamus petition in the 

state supreme court. Id. at 7. As explained above, the Court has previously found that a denial of 

a mandamus petition is not equivalent to a denial of a state habeas petition. Dkt. 17 at 6. 

Therefore, raising such an argument—to justify reconsideration under Rule 59(e)—is unavailing 

because Petitioner has failed to show that the Court committed clear error in finding that his 

claims were unexhausted. Petitioner also argues that by denying his mandamus petition, the state 

supreme court “blockaded any state court’s ability to have accorded meaningful relief—by 

arbitrarily precluding the transcripts from the review process . . . .” Dkt. 20 at 7. Such an 

argument does not state grounds for reconsideration under Rule 59(e), but more importantly, it is 

without merit because its premise is incorrect. The record indicated that Petitioner was without 

his trial transcripts because the state appellate court initially did not return his transcripts. Dkt. 1 

at 7. However, in an attempt to obtain the missing transcripts, Petitioner filed the aforementioned 

mandamus petition in the California Supreme Court. Dkt. 9-2 at 4-10. As part of the relief 

requested in the mandamus petition, Petitioner requested for the “production of said transcripts 

Case 4:13-cv-02773-YGR Document 24 Filed 07/10/15 Page 3 of 5
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

back from the appeals court, as such were [his] only set.” Dkt. 1 at 8. Shortly after he filed the 

mandamus petition, Petitioner received the missing trial transcripts from the state appellate court. 

Id. The California Supreme Court then denied Petitioner’s mandamus petition. Dkt. 9-2 at 2. 

This Court previously noted that the record does not contain a copy of the state supreme court’s 

denial of the mandamus petition; however, Petitioner claimed that the denial was “ostensibly due 

to the relief-request having became rendered moot” by the return of his trial transcripts. Dkt. 17 at 

4 (quoting Dkt. 1 at 8). Therefore, contrary to his assertions in the addendum to his Rule 59(e) 

motion, Petitioner was not “blockaded” from presenting his state habeas petition in the state 

supreme court because he had the trial transcripts available to him. Therefore, the Court finds that 

Petitioner’s addendum does not state grounds for reconsideration under Rule 59(e).

In sum, Petitioner’s arguments in his Rule 59(e) motion and addendum neither present

newly discovered evidence, nor identify an intervening change in controlling law. McDowell, 197 

F.3d at 1255. Petitioner also has not shown that the Court committed clear error in granting 

Respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition for failure to exhaust state court remedies. Id.

Therefore, Petitioner’s Rule 59(e) motion is DENIED. Dkt. 19.

To the extent that Petitioner’s declaration in support of his Rule 59(e) motion seeks 

reconsideration of the Court’s denial of Petitioner’s motion for leave to have inmate Simpson 

formally receive “next friend” status, reconsideration is DENIED because the Court did not 

commit clear error in denying such a motion. Dkt. 20-1. And the Court subsequently did not 

commit clear error in granting Respondent’s motion to dismiss without first giving leave for 

Petitioner to have inmate Simpson formally receive “next friend” status. First, Petitioner failed to 

allege or show inaccessibility, incompetency, or other disability to warrant legal assistance from 

inmate Simpson. Dkt. 17 at 1-2. Second, Petitioner failed to show that the “putative next friend 

ha[d] both a significant relationship with the real party in interest and true dedication to his or her 

interests.” Id. (citing Coalition of Clergy, Lawyers, and Professors v. Bush, 310 F.3d 1153, 1161-

62 (9th Cir. 2002)). Furthermore, Petitioner did not have a likelihood of success on the merits

because his claims were found to be unexhausted—deficiencies that Petitioner could not cure, 

even with assistance from inmate Simpson.

Case 4:13-cv-02773-YGR Document 24 Filed 07/10/15 Page 4 of 5
5

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

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration under Rule 59(e) is 

DENIED.2 Dkt. 19.

This Order terminates Docket No. 19.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

______________________________________

YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

United States District Judge

 

2

The Court notes that Petitioner has since been released on parole. Dkt. 22. On June 24, 

2015, mail sent to Petitioner’s last-known address from the Court was returned as undeliverable. 

Id. To date, Petitioner has not updated his address pursuant to Northern District Local Rule 3-11. 

See L.R. 3-11(a) (party proceeding pro se whose address changes while action is pending must 

promptly file and serve notice of change of address specifying new address). Even though it 

seems that Petitioner may no longer wish to prosecute this action, the Court has resolved his 

pending Rule 59(e) motion by denying it, and thus this case remains closed.

July 10, 2015

Case 4:13-cv-02773-YGR Document 24 Filed 07/10/15 Page 5 of 5