Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-01877/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-01877-7/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Miguel A. Cisneros
Petitioner
Jim Robertson
Respondent

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MIGUEL A. CISNEROS,

Petitioner,

v.

JIM ROBERTSON,

Respondent.

Case No. 18-cv-01877-HSG 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION

Dkt. No. 59

Petitioner, a state prisoner presently incarcerated in Pelican Bay State Prison, filed a pro se

petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On September 5, 2019, the 

Court dismissed the petition for failure to exhaust state court remedies without prejudice to 

petitioner returning to federal court after exhausting his state court remedies by presenting his 

claims to the California Supreme Court. Dkt. Nos. 57, 58. The Court denied a certificate of 

appealability and entered judgment in favor of respondent. Id. 

Petitioner has filed a pleading titled “Opposition Argument for the Court to re[-]amend 

petition and not grant the dismissal base on defens[e] evidence presented significant probative 

value to the ruling of the motion dismissal of petition,” which the Court construes as a motion 

seeking reconsideration pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Dkt. No. 

59. For the following reasons, the Court DENIES the motion for reconsideration.

DISCUSSION

I. STANDARD

Where the court’s ruling has resulted in a final judgment or order, a motion for 

reconsideration may be based on Rule 59(e) (motion to alter or amend judgment) of the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure. Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). 

Case 4:18-cv-01877-HSG Document 61 Filed 09/23/19 Page 1 of 3
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

Although Rule 59(e) permits a district court to reconsider and amend a previous order, the 

rule offers an extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of finality and 

conservation of judicial resources. Indeed, a motion for reconsideration 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 controlling law.

Kona Enterprises, Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000) (internal quotation 

marks and citation omitted).

II. ANALYSIS

Petitioner argues that the Court committed clear error in dismissing his petition because the 

Court erroneously denied his request to amend the amended petition and the proposed second 

amended petition contained evidence that he had exhausted his state court remedies. Dkt. No. 59. 

The denial for petitioner’s request for leave to file the proposed second amended petition was not 

clear error because (1) the Court properly denied the request to amend the amended petition on the 

grounds that no new claims were alleged, and (2) the Court construed the proposed second 

amended petition as a sur-reply and considered the sur-reply in deciding the motion to dismiss. 

Dkt. No. 55. In other words, the “evidence” presented in the sur-reply (proposed second amended 

petition) was considered by the Court. Moreover, the evidence in the sur-reply (proposed second 

amended petition) was not evidence that petitioner had exhausted his state court remedies. As part 

of the sur-reply, petitioner submitted the San Mateo County Superior Court’s April 15, 2019, 

denial of his state habeas petition that raised the claims in the instant action. Dkt. No. 54 at 28-30. 

This denial does not exhaust the petitioner’s state court remedies. Petitioner continues to 

misunderstand the exhaustion requirement. As explained in the Court’s September 5, 2019 Order:

The exhaustion requirement requires petitioners seeking federal habeas relief to provide 

the highest state court available an opportunity to rule on the merits of their federal habeas 

claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)–(c); Rose, 455 U.S. at 515–16. Applied to the amended 

petition, the exhaustion requirement requires Petitioner to have submitted the claims in the 

amended petition to the California Supreme Court, whether in a petition for review or a 

state habeas petition, before this Court may consider his claims.

Dkt. No. 57 at 5. Because the record shows that petitioner has only presented the claims in the 

instant action to the San Mateo County Superior Court, and has not presented these claims to the 

California Supreme Court, the Court did not commit clear error in dismissing this action without 

prejudice to petitioner returning to federal court after exhausting his state court remedies by 

Case 4:18-cv-01877-HSG Document 61 Filed 09/23/19 Page 2 of 3
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

presenting his claims to the California Supreme Court. Nor does the dismissal constitute manifest 

injustice. Petitioner may refile this action after he has exhausted his state court remedies by 

presenting his claims to the California Supreme Court.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, petitioner’s request for reconsideration pursuant to Rule 59(e) of 

the dismissal without prejudice for failure to exhaust state remedies is DENIED.

This order terminates Dkt. No. 59. This case remains closed. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 9/23/2019

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 4:18-cv-01877-HSG Document 61 Filed 09/23/19 Page 3 of 3