Jacome v. Newsom

1
3:25-cv-1128-BEN-DDL
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
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ALEXANDER ROBERT JACOME,
Petitioner,
v.
GAVIN NEWSOM,
Respondent.
Case No.: 3:25-cv-1128-BEN-DDL
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
MODIFICATION OF JUDGMENT
[Doc. No. 14]
BACKGROUND
On May 1, 2025, Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for
Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, along with a request to proceed in
forma pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Doc. Nos. 1 & 2. On July 14,
2025, Petitioner was granted IFP status but his habeas petition was dismissed for failure to
state a cognizable claim for relief under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases
(“Habeas Rules”), which provides for summary dismissal of a habeas petition “[i]f it
plainly appears from the face of the petition and any attached exhibits that the petition is
not entitled to relief in the district court. . ..” Rule 4, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. Specifically,
the Court determined Petitioner is not presently entitled to habeas relief because he has not
alleged the state court violated his federal rights. See Doc. No. 8 at 2–3. The Court also
noted that Petitioner could not simply amend his petition to state a federal claim because
Case 3:25-cv-01128-BEN-DDL Document 15 Filed 03/11/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 1 of 3

2
3:25-cv-1128-BEN-DDL
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
he must first exhaust those claims in state court. Id. at 3–4. Thus, the Court dismissed the
action and entered judgment. Doc. Nos. 8, 9.
After judgment was entered, Petitioner filed a Motion to Amend/Correct and Motion
to Reopen Case on July 28, 2025. Doc. No. 10. Thereafter, he filed a supplemental
document. Doc. No. 11. On September 26, 2026, the Court denied both motions because
Petitioner had failed to cure the defects outlined in the Court’s July 14, 2025 dismissal
order. See Doc. No. 12.
On November 28, 2025, Petitioner filed a “Rule 59 Motion for Modification of
Judgment.” Doc. No. 14. In it, Petitioner asks the Court modify the judgment and
“consolidate[] together” his criminal cases and appeals in state court. Id. at 5. He also asks
the Court to exercise “supplemental jurisdiction” over his state criminal cases under 28
U.S.C. § 1367. Id. at 4.
DISCUSSION
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) permits a party to file a “motion to alter or
amend a judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) “The time for doing so is short—28 days from
entry of the judgment, with no possibility of an extension.” Banister v. Davis, 590 U.S.
504, 507–08 (2020) (citing Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 6(b)(2)); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e).
Here, judgment was entered on July 14, 2025 and as such, Petitioner’s November 28, 2025
Rule 59 Motion is untimely. Because Petitioner is proceeding pro se, however, the Court
will construe Plaintiff’s under Rule 60(b). See Aronson v. Dog Eat Dog Films, Inc., 738 F.
Supp. 2d 1104, 1120 (W.D. Wash. 2010) (“[T]he court may construe an untimely motion
for reconsideration brought under Rule 59(e) as a motion based on Rule 60(b).”).
Under Rule 60(b), a “court may relieve a party . . . from a final . . . order . . . for the
following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly
discovered evidence . . .; (3) fraud . . ., misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing
party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged;
it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it
prospectively is no longer equitable; or (6) any other reason that justifies relief.” Fed. R.
Case 3:25-cv-01128-BEN-DDL Document 15 Filed 03/11/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 2 of 3

3
3:25-cv-1128-BEN-DDL
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
Civ. P. 60(b). “Motions for relief from judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b) are addressed to
the sound discretion of the district court.” Casey v. Albertson’s Inc., 362 F.3d 1254, 1257
(9th Cir. 2004).
Here, Petitioner’s motion also fails under Rule 60(b) because Petitioner does not
state adequate grounds for reconsideration. A motion for reconsideration “may not be used
to raise arguments or present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have
been raised earlier in the litigation.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Est. of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890
(9th Cir. 2000) (emphasis in original). And in his motion, Petitioner makes an entirely new
request that the Court to “consolidate” his state court criminal cases and exercise
“supplemental jurisdiction” over them pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Doc. No. 14 at 1, 4.
First, the Court notes supplemental jurisdiction does not apply to federal habeas
proceedings because, as previously discussed, this court has no federal habeas jurisdiction
over any claims alleging violations of state law. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) (stating “a district
court shall entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person in
custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody
in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States”).
Furthermore, Petitioner sets forth no specific basis for reconsideration based on
mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. Nor does he present any newly
discovered evidence, or assert fraud by the Respondent, voiding or satisfaction of the
judgment, or any other reason justifying relief. As such, Petitioner has failed to show that
reconsideration is warranted under Rule 60(b).
Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s Motion for
Modification of Judgment [Doc. No. 14]. The Clerk shall close the file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 11, 2026
Hon. Roger T. Benitez
United States District Judge
Case 3:25-cv-01128-BEN-DDL Document 15 Filed 03/11/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 3 of 3