Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03342/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03342-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Gloria Henry
Respondent
Alisi Mapa
Petitioner

Document Text:

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALISI MAPA,

Petitioner,

 v.

GLORIA HENRY,

Respondent. ______________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 04-3342 MMC (PR)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

NEW TRIAL AND REQUEST FOR

CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY

(Docket Nos. 22 & 23)

On August 17, 2004, petitioner, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed the

above-titled petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On May 18,

2007, respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition was granted. Now before the Court is

petitioner’s motion, filed June 6, 2007, for a “new trial” pursuant to Rule 59 of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure. 

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. In

this instance, however, reconsideration is not available to petitioner pursuant to Rule 59(e)

because the request was submitted after the time for filing such a motion had passed. See

Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) (providing motion must be filed no more than ten days following entry

of judgment). Moreover, petitioner’s motion presents no grounds for reconsideration. 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.

Case 3:04-cv-03342-MMC Document 24 Filed 06/27/07 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

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

Accordingly, petitioner’s motion “for a new trial” is hereby DENIED.

On June 18, 2007, petitioner filed a notice of appeal, which the Court construes as

including a request for a certificate of appealability pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) and

Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22(b). See United States v. Asrar, 116 F.3d 1268, 1270

(9th Cir. 1997). Petitioner, however, 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.” See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483 (2000). 

Accordingly, the request for a certificate of appealability is hereby DENIED.

The Clerk shall forward this order, along with the case file, to the United States Court

of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, from which petitioner also may seek a certificate of

appealability. See Asrar, 116 F.3d at 1270.

This order terminates Docket Nos. 22 and 23.

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 27, 2007 _________________________

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-03342-MMC Document 24 Filed 06/27/07 Page 2 of 2