Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-01960/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-01960-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
CSP Sacramento Warden
Respondent
Rodrigo Sandoval
Petitioner

Document Text:

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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RODRIGO SANDOVAL,

Petitioner,

v.

CSP SACRAMENTO WARDEN,

Respondent.

No. 2:18-cv-1960 JAM DB P

ORDER 

Petitioner is a state prisoner who was proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas 

corpus pursuant to § 2254. Petitioner alleged that he has not been resentenced pursuant to 

Proposition 36 and he has not been found eligible for parole consideration under Proposition 57. 

(ECF No. 1.) Judgment was entered and this action was closed on July 11, 2019. (ECF Nos. 14, 

15.) Presently before the court is petitioner’s motion to modify the judgment. (ECF No. 16.)

I. Background 

Upon screening the petition, the court determined that petitioner’s claim is not cognizable 

in a habeas case and must be brought, if at all, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 12.) The court 

dismissed the petition and gave petitioner the option of converting this action into a civil rights 

case pursuant to § 1983. Petitioner was warned that failure to file a § 1983 complaint or 

otherwise respond to the court’s order would result in a recommendation that this action be 

dismissed. (ECF No. 12 at 6.) Petitioner did not file any response to the court’s order. After the 

time to file a response expired, the undersigned recommended that this action be dismissed. (ECF 

Case 2:18-cv-01960-JAM-DB Document 17 Filed 03/03/20 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

2

No. 13.) Petitioner did not file objections or otherwise respond to the findings and 

recommendations. The findings and recommendations were adopted, and judgment was entered 

on July 11, 2019. (ECF Nos. 14, 15.)

Petitioner filed a motion requesting that the court modify the order adopting the findings 

and recommendations on July 31, 2019. (ECF No. 16.) He specifically requests an addition to 

the court’s July 10, 2019 order directing petitioner to file and exhaust the administrative 

grievance process prior to filing a § 1983 action. (Id. at 4.) Petitioner states that without an order 

from this court ordering him to file and exhaust all available administrative remedies, the prison 

appeal office will cancel petitioner’s grievance based on a failure to comply with the time 

constraints. However, if the court modifies its order to explicitly direct petitioner to exhaust 

administrative remedies the prison appeals office will allow him to exhaust.

II. Legal Standards 

Because the motion was filed within 28 days after the entry of final judgment, the court 

construes the motion as one filed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). A Rule 59(e)

motion to alter or amend the judgment is an “extraordinary remedy which should be used 

sparingly.” Allstate Ins. Co. v. Herron, 634 F.3d 1101, 1111 (9th Cir. 2011). In general, there are 

four grounds upon which a Rule 59(e) motion may be granted:

(1) if such motion is necessary to correct manifest errors of law or 

fact upon which the judgment rests; (2) if such motion is necessary 

to present newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence; (3) 

if such motion is necessary to prevent manifest injustice; or (4) if the 

amendment is justified by an intervening change in controlling law.

Id. (citing McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 1255 n.1 (9th Cir. 1999) (en banc) (per 

curium)).

To demonstrate “manifest error,” petitioner must show the judgment rests on an incorrect 

factual assumption or clear error of law. However, new legal arguments that should have been 

raised previously are not appropriate in a Rule 59(e) motion. Divane v. Krull Elec. Co., Inc., 194 

F.3d 845, 850 (7th Cir. 1999). 

////

////

Case 2:18-cv-01960-JAM-DB Document 17 Filed 03/03/20 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

3

III. Discussion

Petitioner has not cited any newly discovered evidence or a change in the law to support 

his motion. Additionally, petitioner has not shown that the there is an error of law or fact upon 

which the judgment rests. The court dismissed his claim for failure to prosecute and failure to 

comply or otherwise respond to court orders. (See ECF Nos. 13, 14.) Petitioner challenges a new 

issue, exhaustion, that is unrelated to the underlying judgment.

Further, the court finds there is nothing in the record to indicate that petitioner could not 

have raised this issue earlier. Petitioner has not put forth any information explaining why he did 

not bring this issue before the court prior to the entry of final judgment despite having at least two 

opportunities. Therefore, the court finds that petitioner has not met his burden of showing that 

the judgment should be altered. 

However, the court will deny the motion to modify the judgment without prejudice. 

Should petitioner file a renewed motion to modify he should explain why he did not put the 

exhaustion issue before the court prior to entry of final judgment.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s motion to modify the order 

adopting the findings and recommendations (ECF No. 16) is denied without prejudice. 

Dated: March 2, 2020

Case 2:18-cv-01960-JAM-DB Document 17 Filed 03/03/20 Page 3 of 3