Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
FREDY TEPEHUA-TLAPALTOTOLI,
Petitioner,
v. No. 2:26-cv-00116-KG-GJF
KRISTI NOEM, et al.,
Respondents.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on Petitioner’s Motion to Alter Judgment or Amend,
Doc. 16, and the Government’s Response in Opposition, Doc. 17. For the reasons below, the Court
denies the motion.
Petitioner, a native and citizen of Mexico, entered the United States in 2017 without
inspection. Doc. 1 at 7. ICE detained him and placed him in removal proceedings. Id. ICE
ultimately released him after he posted a $25,000 bond. Id. In late 2025, DHS arrested him. Id. at
4. He remains detained at Otero County Immigration Processing Center in New Mexico. Id.
On February 13, 2026, the Court concluded that Petitioner’s redetention violates the
Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) and the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Doc. 13
at 2. The Court placed the burden on the Government to justify Petitioner’s continued detention.
Id. Following that ruling, an immigration judge (“IJ”) conducted a bond hearing and denied bond.
See Doc. 10. Petitioner then moved to enforce the Court’s prior order, arguing that the IJ failed to
meaningfully apply the Court’s burden-shifting standard, Doc. 10, but the Court denied that motion.
Doc. 15. Petitioner now moves to amend that order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
59(e). Doc. 16.
The Tenth Circuit recognizes only certain grounds for granting a Rule 59(e) motion,
Case 2:26-cv-00116-KG-GJF Document 18 Filed 04/16/26 Page 1 of 2

2
including: “(1) an intervening change in the controlling law, (2) new evidence previously
unavailable, and (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” See Servants of
the Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000). A Rule 59(e) motion “is appropriate
where the court has misapprehended the facts, a party’s position, or the controlling law.” Id. “Rule
59(e) motions are not appropriate to revisit issues already addressed or advance arguments that
could have been raised in prior briefing.” Castanon v. Cathey, 976 F.3d 1136, 1141 (10th Cir.
2020) (citation omitted). The decision to grant or deny a Rule 59(e) motion is left to the sound
discretion of the trial court. See Minshall v. McGraw Hill Broadcasting Co., 323 F.3d 1273, 1287
(10th Cir. 2003).
Petitioner does not identify any basis for reconsideration under Rule 59(e). He does not
point to any intervening change in controlling law, newly discovered evidence, or clear error in the
Court’s prior order. Instead, the motion reasserts arguments previously raised and rejected—that
the IJ failed to apply the Court’s burden-shifting framework at the bond hearing. Doc. 16 at 3–4.
The Court considered and rejected that contention in denying Petitioner’s motion to enforce. See
Doc. 15. A motion for reconsideration is not a vehicle to rehash arguments already presented.
Castanon, 976 F.3d at 1141. Because Petitioner’s motion does not meet the limited grounds for
relief under Rule 59(e), it is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED
/s/Kenneth J. Gonzales___________________
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
• Please note that this document has been
electronically filed. To verify its authenticity,
please refer to the Digital File Stamp on the
NEF (Notice of Electronic Filing)
accompanying this document. Electronically
filed documents can be found on the Court’s
PACER public access system.
Case 2:26-cv-00116-KG-GJF Document 18 Filed 04/16/26 Page 2 of 2