Opinion
21-cv-1443-MMA (WVG)
11-10-2022
PEDRO RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner, v. KATHLEEN ALLISON, Warden, Respondent.
ORDER DENYING SECOND MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND OTHER MISCELLANEOUS REQUESTS
[DOC. NO. 69]
HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
On August 9, 2021, Pedro Rodriguez (“Petitioner”), an inmate currently housed at Vista Detention Facility in San Diego County and proceeding pro se, filed a habeas corpus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (the “Petition”). See Doc. No. 1. On August 9, 2022, Magistrate Judge William V. Gallo issued a detailed and well-reasoned Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), recommending that the Court grant Respondent's motion and dismiss the Petition without leave to amend. See Doc. No. 51 at 12. On September 21, 2022, the Court issued an Order adopting Judge Gallo's R&R, granting Respondent's motion, and dismissing the Petition without leave to amend. Doc. No. 56. On September 30, 2022, Petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal. Doc. No. 58. On October 12, 2022, Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration regarding the Court's September 21, 2022 Order. Doc. No. 60 at 1. On October 17, 2022, the Court denied Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration. Doc. No. 61.
All citations to electronically filed documents refer to the pagination assigned by the CM/ECF system.
Currently before the Court is Petitioner's second motion for reconsideration pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), wherein he also requests leave to amend and a certificate of appealability. Doc. No. 69. Plaintiff cannot file successive motions for reconsideration and raise the same arguments or those that could have been raised previously. See, e.g., Wages v. IRS, 915 F.2d 1230, 1233 n.3 (9th Cir. 1990); Benson v. St. Joseph Reg'l Health Ctr., 575 F.3d 542, 547 (5th Cir. 2009) (holding that successive Rule 59(e) motions are improper because “[w]ere such motions permitted, it is conceivable that a dissatisfied litigant could continually seek reconsideration and prevent finality of judgment”); see also Terry v. Quijote, No. 19-cv-00401-DKW-RT, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10124, at *3 (D. Haw. June 9, 2020), aff'd, 848 Fed.Appx. 736 (9th Cir. 2021). Moreover, to the extent Petitioner requests that the Court reconsider its September 21, 2022 Order, the Court DENIES Petitioner's motion for the same reasons stated in its October 17, 2022 Order where the Court denied Petitioner's first motion for reconsideration. See Doc. Nos. 56, 61. Here, Petitioner again does not identify any specific error in the Court's September 21, 2022 Order and appears to just be in general disagreement with the Court's ruling dismissing this case. See United States v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F.Supp.2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001). These arguments are again insufficient to alter or amend a judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e). Id.; see also Doc. No. 61 at 3.
Further, Petitioner has filed a Notice of Appeal. See Doc. Nos. 58, 59, 67 at 3 n.3. It is “a general rule, [that] the filing of a notice of appeal divests a district court of jurisdiction over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal.” Stein v. Wood, 127 F.3d 1187, 1189 (9th Cir. 1997). Moreover, the Court has already declined to issue a certificate of appealability. See Doc. No. 56. Therefore, in light of the Court's rulings, see Doc. Nos. 56, 57, 61, and Petitioner's Notice of Appeal, see Doc. Nos. 58, 59, the Court DENIES Petitioner's requests for leave to amend and for certificate of appealability for lack of jurisdiction. Petitioner's requests are more appropriately addressed to the Ninth Circuit. see Fed. R. App. P. 22(b)(2). Therefore, Petitioner is reminded once again that he filed a Notice of Appeal, see Doc. Nos. 58, 59, and all requests and/or motions relating to that appeal should be filed with the Ninth Circuit. See Doc. No. 67 at 3 n.3.
IT IS SO ORDERED.