Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-03243/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-03243-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Debbie Asuncion
Respondent
Carlos Romero Burnett
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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CARLOS ROMERO BURNETT,

Petitioner,

v.

DEBBIE ASUNCION,

Respondent.

Case No. 18-cv-03243-JD 

ORDER RE MOTION TO ALTER OR 

AMEND JUDGMENT

Re: Dkt. No. 21

On August 27, 2019, the Court granted petitioner Burnett’s habeas petition under 28 

U.S.C. § 2254 because the California courts had wrongly denied his right to self-representation as 

established by Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975). Dkt. No. 19. The Court entered 

judgment in Burnett’s favor the same day. Dkt. No. 20. On September 24, 2019, respondent filed 

a motion to amend the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), which in effect asks 

the Court to reconsider its ruling on the merits. Dkt. No. 21. The motion is denied. 

A Rule 59(e) motion is an “‘extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of 

finality and conservation of judicial resources.’” Wood v. Ryan, 759 F.3d 1117, 1121 (9th Cir. 

2014) (quoting Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000)); see also 

Weeks v. Bayer, 246 F.3d 1231, 1236 (9th Cir. 2001) (Rule 59(e) is a “high hurdle”). Such a 

motion “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.” McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 1255 (9th Cir. 1999) (en 

banc) (internal citation omitted); see also Allstate Ins. Co. v. Herron, 634 F.3d 1101, 1111 (9th 

Cir. 2011) (same). As these high standards convey, Rule 59(e) is not a vehicle to re-hash an issue 

the Court has already decided. It “may not be used to relitigate old matters, or to raise arguments 

Case 3:18-cv-03243-JD Document 23 Filed 11/08/19 Page 1 of 2
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

or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment.” Exxon Shipping 

Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471, 485 n.5 (2008) (internal citation omitted). 

Respondent seeks reconsideration under Rule 59(e) mainly on a claim of clear error, so 

that element bears additional attention. Clear error requires a showing of more than a simple

disagreement with the Court’s answer to a debatable question. McDowell, 197 F.3d at 1255-56 

and n.4. To win reconsideration on this ground, respondent must demonstrate that the Court 

committed a manifest error of law or fact sufficiently egregious to warrant extraordinary relief

under Rule 59(e). See id. 

Resolution of a Rule 59(e) motion is entrusted to the sound discretion of the Court. Id. at 

1256; Turner v. Burlington N. Santa Fe R.R., 338 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th Cir. 2003). 

These well-established standards make quick work of respondent’s motion. That is 

because the motion does nothing more than repeat the same arguments, same case citations and 

same factual allegations that the Court considered before granting the habeas petition. Respondent 

does not point to any new cases, changes in the law, or new facts, and its recycled arguments are 

no more compelling the second time around. The motion does not present a good reason for relief 

under Rule 59(e). See Maraziti v. Thorpe, 52 F.3d 252, 255 (9th Cir. 1995). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 8, 2019

JAMES DONATO

United States District Judge

Case 3:18-cv-03243-JD Document 23 Filed 11/08/19 Page 2 of 2