Burnett v. Asuncion
- James Donato
- 3:18-cv-03243
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
Burnett v. Asuncion: Judge Donato denied reconsideration of Burnett’s habeas victory because the request repeated arguments the court had already considered.
Carlos Romero Burnett, whose earlier favorable habeas judgment remained in place, and Debbie Asuncion, whose motion to alter or amend that judgment was denied.
What happened
In Burnett v. Asuncion, the court had previously granted Carlos Romero Burnett’s petition challenging his state-court conviction because California courts wrongly denied his right to represent himself.
Debbie Asuncion asked the court to change that judgment, arguing mainly that the court had made a serious legal or factual mistake. The request repeated the same arguments, case citations, and factual allegations previously presented.
Judge Donato denied the request because it identified no new law, new facts, or other sufficient reason to reconsider the judgment.
The detailed version
- Burnett v. Asuncion · No. 3:18-cv-03243
- James Donato
- Nov. 8, 2019
Background
On August 27, 2019, the court granted Carlos Romero Burnett’s petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The court concluded that the California courts had wrongly denied Burnett’s right to represent himself, as recognized in Faretta v. California. The court entered judgment for Burnett the same day.
Motion and Legal Standard
Debbie Asuncion filed a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) asking the court to alter the judgment. The court treated the motion as effectively asking it to reconsider its decision on the merits.
The court explained that a Rule 59(e) motion is an extraordinary remedy used sparingly. Relief generally requires newly discovered evidence, clear error, or an intervening change in controlling law. A party cannot use the motion simply to repeat an issue or present evidence that could have been raised before judgment. For a claim of clear error, the moving party must show a serious legal or factual mistake warranting this extraordinary relief.
Court’s Analysis
The court found that Asuncion’s motion repeated the same arguments, case citations, and factual allegations that the court had considered before granting Burnett’s petition. Asuncion identified no new cases, change in the law, or new facts. The court concluded that the repeated arguments did not provide a sufficient reason for relief under Rule 59(e).
Disposition
The court denied Asuncion’s motion to alter or amend the judgment. The opinion did not change the earlier judgment granting Burnett’s petition.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.