Pallares

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 TANISHIA SAVANNAH WILLIAMS, Case No. 2:20-cv-01519-JAM-JDP (HC) Petitioner, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

THAT PETITIONER’S MOTION TO

v. REOPEN CASE AND REQUEST FOR

COURT ORDER BE DENIED

MICHAEL PALLARES,

OBJECTIONS DUE IN FOURTEEN DAYS

Respondent. ECF Nos. 38 & 39 15 This petition under section 2254 was dismissed without prejudice on December 16, 2021, after it was determined that petitioner had not exhausted her claims and had failed to show good cause for a stay. ECF Nos. 31 & 36. Now petitioner has filed two motions to re-open the case, which I construe as motions to amend or alter judgment under Rule 59(e). ECF Nos. 38 & 39. She has not met the high standards for granting such a motion, however, and I recommend that both be denied. A grant of a motion to amend or alter judgment under Rule 59(e) is an “extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.”1…