Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02481/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02481-2/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DENNIS B. ANDERSON,

Petitioner,

v.

TERESA A. SCHWARTZ,

Respondent.

NO. C06-2481 TEH 

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S

MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND

JUDGMENT

On April 7, 2006, Petitioner Dennis B. Anderson filed a petition for writ of habeas

corpus challenging the third denial of his parole by the California Board of Prison Terms

(“Board”). On August 24, 2006, this Court denied Anderson’s petition and entered judgment

the following day. This matter now comes before the Court on Anderson’s timely motion to

alter or amend the Court’s judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). Although

the motion is currently scheduled for hearing on October 16, 2006, this Court finds the

motion suitable for decision without oral argument and therefore VACATES the October 16

hearing date. For the reasons discussed below, the Court finds good cause to DENY

Anderson’s motion.

Granting a Rule 59(e) motion “is appropriate where 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.” Sch. Dist. No.

1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). “There may also be other, highly

unusual, circumstances warranting reconsideration.” Id.

Anderson contends that relief under Rule 59(e) is proper “to protect against manifest

injustice” because he had no opportunity to argue that the Board’s decision to deny parole

was unconstitutionally arbitrary based on the Court’s conclusion that three of the Board’s

findings lacked evidentiary support. Mot. at 2-3. However, Anderson clearly could have

Case 3:06-cv-02481-TEH Document 16 Filed 10/13/06 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

2

raised that argument in his original petition and traverse. Rather than simply arguing that

there was no evidence to support the Board’s findings, Petitioner could also have argued –

and reasonably should have argued, if this was his position – that even if the Court found

sufficient evidence to support the Board’s denial of parole, the Court must still order a new

parole hearing if it also found that some of the Board’s findings were unsupported by the

evidence and that it was not clear whether the Board would have reached the same result had

it not considered the unsupported findings. Anderson’s failure to raise that argument at an

earlier stage of these proceedings is sufficient grounds for denying his motion to alter or

amend judgment. As the Ninth Circuit has explained, “[a] Rule 59(e) motion may not be

used to raise arguments or present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably

have been raised earlier in the litigation.” Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir.

2003). Accordingly, with good cause appearing, Anderson’s motion to alter or amend

judgment under Rule 59(e) is hereby DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 10/13/06 

THELTON E. HENDERSON, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 3:06-cv-02481-TEH Document 16 Filed 10/13/06 Page 2 of 2