1

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 * * * 5 RAY PINEDA, Case No. 2:20-cv-01248-GMN-VCF 6 Petitioner, 7 v. ORDER

8 JERRY HOWELL, et al., 9 Respondents. 10 11 12 On June 13, 2020, this court entered an order and judgment dismissing petitioner 13 Pineda’s habeas petition under

because it fails to state a cognizable 14 claim for habeas relief. ECF Nos. 5/6. Pineda has filed a motion for relief from the 15 judgment under Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. ECF No. 7. 16 A Rule 59(e) motion seeks to “alter or amend” a judgment and requires “a 17 substantive change of mind” by the court. Miller v. Transamerican Press, Inc.,

524, 527 (9th Cir. 1983). “Under Rule 59(e), a motion for reconsideration should not be 19 granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with 20 newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or there is an intervening change in 21 the controlling law.” 389 Orange Street Partners v. Arnold,

(9th Cir. 22 1999); see also McDowell v. Calderon,

(9th Cir. 1999) (en banc). 23 The requirement of such a showing is a “high hurdle.” Weeks v. Bayer,

, 24 1236 (9th Cir. 2001). 25 26 27 1 Pineda’s motion does not provide any pertinent information, evidence, or 2 argument that was not before the court when it dismissed this case. Thus, he fails to 3 make the required showing for relief under Rule 59(e). 4 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for relief from judgment 5 under Rule 59(e) (ECF No. 7) is DENIED. 6 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the petitioner’s motion for correction (ECF No. 8) is 7 DENIED as moot. 8 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the court declines to issue a certificate of 9 appealability as reasonable jurists would not find dismissal debatable or wrong . 10 DATED THIS _2_0_ day of _A_u_g__u_s_t_ , 2020. 11 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27