1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 CALVIN VALENTINE MURRAY, Case No.: 3:25-cv-00512-JES 3:23-cr-759-JES 13 Petitioner, 14 v. ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR 15 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, RECONSIDERATION 16 Respondent. 17 [ECF Nos. 1, 58] 18 19 20 21 Before the Court is Calvin Valentine Murray’s (“Petitioner”) motion to vacate, set 22 aside, or correct his sentence pursuant to

(“Motion”), alleging ineffective 23 assistance of counsel by his attorney, Gerardo Gonzalez. ECF No. 581. 24 / / / 25 26 27 1 In Petitioner’s civil case, 3:25-cv-00512-JES, Petitioner’s § 2255 motion is ECF No. 1. In the underlying criminal case, 3:23-cr-759-JES, the same motion is filed as ECF No. 58. The Court hereinafter cites only 28 1 I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 2 On June 10, 2024, Petitioner Calvin Murray (“Petitioner”) filed a motion to 3 vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence pursuant to

, alleging 4 ineffective assistance of counsel by his attorney, Gerardo Gonzalez. ECF No. 38. On 5 January 31, 2025, the Court issued an Order denying Petitioner’s motion to vacate, set 6 aside or correct his sentence under

. ECF No. 57. On March 5, 7 2025, Petitioner filed a renewed motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence 8 pursuant to

(ECF No. 58) arguing the same grounds as his original 9 motion and arguing that the Court’s Order is wrong, which the Court construes as a 10 Motion for Reconsideration of its January 31, 2025, Order. See Bernhardt v. Los 11 Angeles County,

(9th Cir. 2003) (“Courts have a duty to construe pro 12 se pleadings liberally, including pro se motions as well as complaints.”). 13 II. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 14 Petitioner asks this Court to reconsider its January 31, 2025, Order. ECF No. 15 58. Southern District of California Civil Local Rule 7.1(i) permits motions for 16 reconsideration “[w]henever any motion or any application or petition for any order or 17 other relief has been made to any judge … has been refused in whole or in part.” S.D. 18 Cal. CivLR 7.1(i). Local Rule 7.1(i)(2) permits motions for reconsideration within 19 “twenty-eight (28) days of the entry of the ruling, order or judgment sought to be 20 reconsidered.” S.D. Cal. CivLR 7.1(i)(2). However, the party seeking reconsideration 21 must show “what new or different facts and circumstances are claimed to exist which 22 did not exist, or were not shown, upon such prior application.”

23 A motion for reconsideration may also be treated as a motion to alter or amend 24 a judgment under Rule 59(e) if it is filed within twenty-eight days of entry of judgment. 25 See Am. Ironworks & Erectors, Inc. v. N. Am. Constr. Corp.,

, 898-99 26 (9th Cir. 2001). But a district court may grant a Rule 59(e) motion only if it “is presented 27 with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening 28 Reconsideration is an “extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of

4 finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 4

, 890 (9" Cir. 2000). As such, a Rule 59(e) motion “should not be granted, 5 absent highly unusual circumstances.” Allstate Ins. Co. v. Herron,

, 1111

6 (9 Cir. 2011); see also Reeder vy. Knapik, No. 07-CV-362-L(LSP),

, 5 at *2 (S.D. Cal. July 18, 2007) (“A motion to reconsider is not another opportunity for

9 the losing party to make its strongest case, reassert arguments, or revamp 9 previously unmeritorious arguments.”); Campion v. Old Republic Home Protection

10 Co., Inc., No. 09-CV-748-JMA(NLS),

, at *2 (S.D. Cal. May 20, 2011) (“[R]econsideration may not be used to get a second bite at the apple.’’). Petitioner filed this renewed motion on March 3, 2025, 31 days after the

3 Court’s January 31, 2025, Order. Petitioner’s motion offers no new or different facts, 4 points to no newly discovered evidence, identifies no clear error, and cites to no

15 intervening change in law that alters the Court’s initial conclusion. Further, Petitioner

16 filed this renewed motion after 28 days from the Court’s January 31, 2025, Order.

7 Accordingly, Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 58) is DENIED.

18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 Dated: April 1, 2025 Sun, . 20 Honorable James E. Sunmons Jr. 1 United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28