Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
JOSE GILBERTO INTERIAN-CABRERA,
Petitioner,
v. 2:26-cv-00473-KG-JMR
GEORGE DEDOS, et al.,
Respondents.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on Jose Gilberto Interian-Cabrera’s Motion for
Reconsideration, Doc. 15, and the Government’s Response in Opposition, Doc. 17. The Court
denies the motion for the reasons below.
Petitioner, a citizen of Mexico, entered the United States in 1998 without inspection. Doc. 1
at 2. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) apprehended him in Oregon on November 3,
2025. Id. He remains detained at the Cibola County Correctional Center in New Mexico. Id. On
March 4, 2026, the Court concluded that Petitioner’s detention violated the Immigration and
Nationality Act (“INA”) and the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Doc. 7 at 2, 4. The
Court directed the Government to provide a bond hearing within seven days, at which it had the
burden to justify his detention by clear and convincing evidence. Id. at 5.
An Immigration Judge (“IJ”) presided over the hearing on March 6, 2026. See Doc. 9-2 at 1.
Petitioner moved to enforce the Court’s prior order, arguing that the IJ failed to meaningfully apply
the Court’s burden-shifting standard, Doc. 9, but the Court denied that motion. Doc. 14. Petitioner
now moves to amend that order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). Doc. 15 at 3.
The Government opposes the motion. Doc. 17.
The Tenth Circuit recognizes only certain grounds for granting a Rule 59(e) motion,
including: “(1) an intervening change in the controlling law, (2) new evidence previously
Case 2:26-cv-00473-KG-JMR Document 19 Filed 05/05/26 Page 1 of 2

2
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. See generally
Doc. 15. The Court considered and rejected that contention in denying Petitioner’s motion to
enforce. See Doc. 14. 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-00473-KG-JMR Document 19 Filed 05/05/26 Page 2 of 2