Burnett

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 CARLOS ROMERO BURNETT, Case No. 18-cv-03243-JD

8 Petitioner,

ORDER RE MOTION TO ALTER OR

9 v. AMEND JUDGMENT

10 DEBBIE ASUNCION, Re: Dkt. No. 21 Respondent. 11

12 13 On August 27, 2019, the Court granted petitioner Burnett’s habeas petition under 28 14 U.S.C. § 2254 because the California courts had wrongly denied his right to self-representation as 15 established by Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975). Dkt. No. 19. The Court entered 16 judgment in Burnett’s favor the same day. Dkt. No. 20. On September 24, 2019, respondent filed 17 a motion to amend the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), which in effect asks 18 the Court to reconsider its ruling on the merits. Dkt. No. 21. The motion is denied. 19 A Rule 59(e) motion is an “‘extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of 20 finality and conservation of judicial resources.’” Wood v. Ryan, 759 F.3d 1117, 1121 (9th Cir. 21 2014) (quoting Kona Enters., Inc. v.…