Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01940/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01940-3/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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GUILLERMO VERA,

Petitioner,

v.

DARRIL ADAMS, et al.,

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 10cv1940-LAB (BLM)

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S

MOTION TO AMEND THE FINDINGS

[ECF No. 39]

On July 9, 2012, Petitioner filed a First Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. ECF

No. 10. On August 13, 2012, this Court filed an Order Requiring Response to the Petition

ordering Respondent to file a motion to dismiss no later than October 1, 2012 or an answer no

later than October 16, 2012. ECF No. 13 at 2-3. Respondent did not file a motion to dismiss on

October 1, 2012 and on October 11, 2012, Respondent’s counsel filed a motion for permission

to file a late motion to dismiss and for an enlargement of time to file a response to Petitioner’s

petition for writ of habeas corpus. ECF No. 14. In support, counsel stated that she did not get

assigned to this matter until October 10, 2012, nine-days after the deadline for filing a motion

to dismiss and only six days before the deadline for filing an answer and that the delay in her

case assignment was due to a serious accident resulting in the hospitalization of the paralegal

charged with opening the case and assigning the matter to counsel. Id. at 3. On October 12,

2012, after finding good cause, the Court granted Respondent permission to file a late motion

10CV1940-LAB(BLM)

Case 3:10-cv-01940-LAB-BLM Document 40 Filed 01/24/13 Page 1 of 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

to dismiss and reset the filing deadlines. ECF No. 15. Respondent was required to file a motion

to dismiss or an answer no later than November 15, 2012, which he did. Id. at 2 and ECF No.

19.

On October 24, 2012, Petitioner filed a motion for entry of default claiming that his

petition for writ of habeas corpus should be granted because Respondent “failed to answer or

serve any defense.” ECF No. 17. Petitioner’s motion was denied in light of the Court’s October

12, 2012 Order [ECF No. 15] granting Respondent additional time to file a response to

Petitioner’s petition. ECF No. 18.

On December 20, 2012, Petitioner filed a motion for sanctions. ECF No. 26. In support,

Petitioner stated that Respondent failed to serve him with a copy of the motion to dismiss and

that it was deliberately sent to another address or institution. Id. Petitioner claimed that

Respondent’s failure to serve him was a “maneuver of tactical advantage” and that as a result,

his petition for writ of habeas corpus should be granted. Id. Petitioner’s motion was denied. 

ECF No. 29. 

On January 23, 2013, Petitioner filed a Motion to Amend the Findings pursuant to Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). ECF No. 39 at 2. While Petitioner’s motion is difficult to interpret,

it is clear that Petitioner argues that his petition for writ of habeas corpus should be granted and

that an order should have been entered against Respondent for his failure to timely file a

response. Id. The Court construes this document as a motion for reconsideration of the Court's

order denying Petitioner's motion for entry of default [ECF No. 17]. The Court has reviewed

Petitioner's arguments and DENIES the instant motion on the following grounds.

Legal Standard

Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(i)(1), a party may apply for reconsideration "[w]henever any

motion or any application for any order or other relief has been made to any judge and has been

refused in whole or in part...." S.D. Cal. Civ.L.R. 7.1(i)1. The party seeking reconsideration must

show "what new or different facts and circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist,

1

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60(b) do not dictate the standard for the instant motion for

reconsideration. Rules 59(e) and 60(b) apply only to motions attacking final, appealable orders. United States v.

Martin, 226 F.3d 1042, 1048, n.8 (9th Cir. 2000). Where reconsideration of a non-final order is sought, the

district court has inherent jurisdiction to modify, alter, or revoke its earlier ruling. Id. at 1049. 

2 10CV1940-LAB(BLM)

Case 3:10-cv-01940-LAB-BLM Document 40 Filed 01/24/13 Page 2 of 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

or were not shown, upon such prior application." Id. Local Rule 7.1(i)(2) permits motions for

reconsideration within "twenty-eight (28) days of the entry of the ruling."

Discussion

Although Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was not made within twenty-eight days

of the entry of ruling2

, the Court has reviewed Petitioner's motion. In his original motion for

default judgment, Petitioner argued that his petition for writ of habeas corpus should be granted

because Respondent “failed to answer or serve any defense.” ECF No. 17. In its order denying

the motion, the Court explained that after finding good cause, the Court granted Respondent

permission to file a late motion to dismiss and reset the filing deadlines, and, therefore,

Respondent did not fail to respond to Petitioner’s petition. ECF No. 18. Later, in it’s order

denying Petitioner’s motion for sanctions, the Court again explained that Respondent timely filed

his response to Petitioner’s petition on November 15, 2012. ECF No. 29.

Because Petitioner has not claimed that any “new or different facts and circumstances .

. . exist which did not exist, or were not shown, upon [his] prior application" as required under

S.D. Cal. Civ.L.R. 7.1(i), his motion for reconsideration of his motion for default judgment is

DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 24, 2013

BARBARA L. MAJOR

United States Magistrate Judge

2

The ruling on Petitioner’s motion for entry of default judgment was on October 25, 2012, seventy days

before Petitioner’s filed his motion which is signed January 3, 2013. ECF Nos. 18 & 39.

3 10CV1940-LAB(BLM)

Case 3:10-cv-01940-LAB-BLM Document 40 Filed 01/24/13 Page 3 of 3