Gordon v. Lizarraga
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:12-cv-00769
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In Gordon v. Lizarraga, Judge Hamilton denied Gordon’s Rule 59(e) request to alter or amend judgment and denied leave to respond to an evidence objection.
Petitioner Charles David Gordon, known as Angie Gordon, did not obtain a change to the judgment; respondent Joe A. Lizarraga was not required to provide further relief.
What happened
In Gordon v. Lizarraga, Charles David Gordon, known as Angie Gordon, asked the court to change its earlier judgment concerning Claims 1, 2, 3, and 9. Gordon argued that California courts had applied a filing deadline unfairly and had prevented federal review of those claims.
The court rejected that argument. It found that Gordon had not shown a clear or obvious legal or factual error because the state courts’ use of the filing deadline was not unfair, arbitrary, or unforeseeable. The court also noted that Gordon had raised important timeliness arguments in a state appellate petition without first presenting them to the state superior court.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton denied the motion to alter or amend the judgment, overruled the objection to evidence, denied Gordon’s request to respond to that objection, and canceled the scheduled hearing.
The detailed version
- Gordon v. Lizarraga · No. 4:12-cv-00769
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Feb. 18, 2020
Background
Charles David Gordon, known as Angie Gordon, filed a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), which allows a party to ask the court to alter or amend a judgment. The motion concerned the court’s earlier treatment of Claims 1, 2, 3, and 9 in Gordon’s federal petition. The court had dismissed those claims as procedurally defaulted because of untimeliness and had also denied them on separate merits grounds after reviewing them independently.
Gordon argued that the court had not addressed her contention that California’s timeliness bar was inadequate as applied to her case. She relied on the filing of a state petition on November 22, 2011, and argued that the state court’s treatment of the claims was surprising, unfair, arbitrary, and designed to avoid federal review. Gordon also argued that the state superior court’s order to show cause showed that the claims required a full merits analysis.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that Rule 59(e) relief may be appropriate when there is newly discovered evidence, clear error, or a change in controlling law. The court concluded that Gordon had not shown clear or manifest error.
The court emphasized that Gordon had not addressed the California Court of Appeal’s finding that her January 3, 2012 petition raised new timeliness arguments that had not first been presented to the superior court. The superior court had denied the November 22, 2011 petition because it did not explain the substantial delay in filing. Because Gordon raised additional timeliness arguments in the appellate court instead of first exhausting them in the superior court, the court found no basis to conclude that California’s application of its timeliness bar was surprising, unfair, arbitrary, novel, or unforeseeable.
The court also rejected Gordon’s argument that the state courts’ use of apparently contradictory procedural bars should be treated as proof that they had not considered whether those bars applied. Gordon cited no authority supporting that argument.
Other motions and ruling
The court overruled the respondent’s objection to an unpublished superior court order submitted with Gordon’s reply, while stating that the order had little to no authoritative weight compared with published state authority cited by the parties. The court denied Gordon’s motion for permission to file a response to that objection. It also determined that oral argument was unnecessary and vacated the hearing scheduled for April 22, 2020.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton denied Gordon’s Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment. The order did not change the court’s earlier rulings on Claims 1, 2, 3, and 9.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.