Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00572/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00572-7/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Matthew Cate
Respondent
Daniel J. Martinez
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DANIEL J. MARTINEZ,

Petitioner,

v.

MATTHEW CATE,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:11-cv-00572 AWI MJS (HC)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION

(Doc. 34)

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

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

On March 27, 2015, the undersigned denied the petition, issued a limited 

certificate of appealability as to claim three, and declined to issue a certificate of 

appealability for the remaining claims. On April 20, 2015, Petitioner filed a motion to 

alter or amend the judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e).

I. LEGAL STANDARD

Relief under Rule 59(e) is appropriate when the district court is presented with 

newly discovered evidence, the district court committed clear error, or a change in 

controlling law intervenes. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 

5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). To avoid being frivolous, such a motion must provide 

a valid ground for reconsideration. See MGIC Indem. Corp. v. Weisman, 803 F.2d 500, 

505 (9th Cir. 1986). A motion to alter or amend a judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e) "must 

Case 1:11-cv-00572-AWI-JDP Document 35 Filed 06/29/15 Page 1 of 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

2

be filed no later than 28 days after the entry of the judgment." Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e).

Petitioner filed the motion 12 days after the judgment was filed. Accordingly, the motion 

is timely.

II. DISCUSSION

In his motion for reconsideration, Petitioner asserts that the Court erred in denying 

claims three, six, and seven of the petition. However, Petitioner does not set forth any 

arguments or evidence that have not already been considered by this Court. Petitioner 

asserts that the Court committed error by determining that the state court's denial of the 

claims was reasonable. Petitioner argues that the Court found that it was possible that 

the evidence indicated there was further interrogation after the invocation of Petitioner's 

Miranda rights, but unreasonably provided deference to the state court decision denying 

the claim. Likewise, Petitioner contends that the Court incorrectly determined that the 

statements by the prosecutor implicating that Petitioner was the party that tagged the 

street in front of the victim's house was not prosecutorial misconduct. Finally, Petitioner 

argues that the Court improperly denied his claim that instructional error violated his right 

to a fair trial. Petitioner presented similar arguments in his Petition, which the Court, 

upon review, found insufficient to warrant relief. His contentions in his motion for 

reconsideration fare no better. Petitioner has not presented newly discovered evidence, 

shown that the district court committed clear error, or that a change in controlling law to 

warrant amending or altering the judgment.

III. ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner's motion to alter or amend the judgment 

(Doc. 34) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 29, 2015 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-00572-AWI-JDP Document 35 Filed 06/29/15 Page 2 of 2