1

2

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 MICHAEL V. LANE, Case No. 3:22-cv-00024-LRH-CLB

6 Petitioner, v. ORDER 7 STATE OF NEVADA, et al., 8 Respondents. 9 10 This closed pro se habeas petition comes before the Court on Petitioner’s (1) request for 11 appointment of counsel (ECF No. 8); (2) motion for rehearing (ECF No. 9), and (3) “Proposed 12 Application for a Certification of Question(s) of Law Pursuant to the F.R.A.P. 44(B) Constitutional 13 Challenge to State Law N.R.S. 171.010” (ECF No. 12). For the reasons discussed below, 14 Petitioner’s request, motion, and application will be denied. 15 Petitioner alleges the State of Nevada lacks jurisdiction to punish him for his convictions 16 because he is a citizen of the United Kingdom. (ECF No. 1). The Court dismissed the petition 17 because Petitioner’s claim concerns the interpretation of state law, i.e., N.R.S. § 171.010, and 18 otherwise fails to allege a cognizable federal habeas corpus claim. (ECF No. 6.) 19 Petitioner’s motion for rehearing (ECF No. 9) was filed within 28 days of the Court’s order 20 dismissing the petition and will therefore be treated as a motion brought under Rule 59(e) of the 21 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Rishor v. Ferguson,

, 489–90 (9th Cir. 2016) 22 (holding a district court properly construed a post-judgment motion for reconsideration, filed 23 within 28 days of entry of judgment, as a motion to alter or amend the judgment under Federal 24 Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 59(e)). 25 A district court may grant a Rule 59(e) motion if it “‘is presented with newly discovered 26 evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling 27 law.’” Wood v. Ryan,

, (9th Cir. 2014) (citations omitted); see also Banister 28 v. Davis,

, 1703 n.2 (2020) (acknowledging “it is rare” for newly discovered 1 || evidence or intervening changes in the law to emerge within Rule 59(e)’s strict 28-day timeframe 2 || and “courts will not address new arguments or evidence that the moving party could have raised 3 || before the decision issued.”). 4 Petitioner claims the Court overlooked and misapprehended law and facts he alleged in the 5 || petition. (ECF No. 9.) Petitioner presents neither newly discovered evidence nor an intervening 6 || change in controlling law. Petitioner’s motion rehashes the arguments presented in his petition and 7 || does not present facts or legal authority that the Court overlooked or misapprehended in ruling that 8 || Petitioner’s claim is not cognizable in federal habeas corpus but is, instead a claim that calls for 9 || the interpretation of state law. (ECF No. 6 at 3.) Petitioner submits additional exhibits that could 10 || have been presented before the Court’s decision dismissing the petition. The additional exhibits 11 || do not change the Court’s conclusion that Petitioner alleges a state law claim and fails to state a 12 || cognizable claim for federal habeas corpus relief. 13 For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner’s motion will be denied.! 14 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion to alter or amend the judgment 15 |} (ECF No. 9) is DENIED. 16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Proposed Application for a Certification 17 || of Question(s) of Law Pursuant to the F.R.A.P. 44(B) Constitutional Challenge to State Law 18 || N.R.S. 171.010 (ECF No. 12) is DENIED. 19 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel (ECF 20 || No. 8) is DENIED as moot. 21 DATED this 3 day of October 2022. . 22 23 LY4RRY R. HICKS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

25 ' Petitioner’s Application under Fed. R. App. P. 44(b) (ECF No. 12) will be denied as inapplicable to this proceeding because the State of Nevada is a named Respondent in the petition. (ECF No. 1.) See Fed. R. App. P. 44(b) (“Ifa party 7 questions the constitutionality of a statute of a State in a proceeding in which that State or its agency, officer, or employee is not a party in an official capacity, the questioning party must give written notice to the circuit clerk immediately upon the filing of the record or as soon as the question is raised in the court of appeals. The clerk must 28 then certify that fact to the attorney general of the State.”).