I. BACKGROUND

25 On November 3, 2017, Magistrate Judge Dembin issued an extensive and thorough 26 ninety-eight page Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that the Court 27 deny Pawlicki’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. (Doc. No. 60.) On November 20, 28 1 2017, Pawlicki filed his Objection to the R&R. (Doc. No. 61.) On July 2, 2018, this Court 2 adopted the R&R, overruled Pawlicki’s objections, denied the petition for writ of habeas 3 corpus, declined to issue a certificate of appealability, and dismissed as moot Pawlicki’s 4 motion for leave to exhaust claims. (Doc. No. 64.) Pawlicki then filed the instant motion 5 for reconsideration. (Doc. Nos. 67, 69.) 6 II. LEGAL STANDARD 7 A motion to alter judgment is brought under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). 8 See Miller v. Transamerican Press, Inc., 709 F.2d 524, 527 (9th Cir. 1983). An amendment 9 to a judgment is appropriate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) if: “(1) the district court is 10 presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) the district court committed clear error or 11 made an initial decision that was manifestly unjust, or (3) there is an intervening change in 12 controlling law.” Zimmerman v. City of Oakland, 255 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing 13 School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993)). 14 The Ninth Circuit has recognized that in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial 15 resources, Rule 59(e) is an “extraordinary remedy to be used sparingly.” Kona Enter., Inc. 16 v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). 17 In addition, Local Civil Rule 7.1(i)(1) states that a party may apply for 18 reconsideration “[w]henever any motion or any application or petition for any order or 19 other relief has been made to any judge and has been refused in whole or in part . . . .” S.D. 20 Cal. CivLR 7.1. The party seeking reconsideration must show “what new or different facts 21 and circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist, or were not shown, upon such 22 prior application.” Id. 23 III. DISCUSSION 24 Pawlicki’s motion for reconsideration yet again re-argues his beliefs that the trial 25 judge engaged in outrageous conduct, the trial judge was unreasonable, that attorney 26 Pacello misled the court regarding his experience, that he was provided with ineffective 27 assistance of counsel, that Pawlicki is actually innocent, and that he was denied his choice 28 of counsel. (See generally Doc. Nos. 67, 69.) The Court previously held that Pawlicki’s 1 || objections were not entitled to de novo review since Pawlicki simply repeated the 2 arguments made in his Petition that were already analyzed by Magistrate Judge Dembin in 3 ||the R&R. (Doc. No. 64 at 10.) Pawlicki again utilizes his motion for reconsideration to 4 simply re-argue the same issues presented in his Petition. Pawlicki has failed to present the 5 || Court with newly discovered evidence, to establish that the Court committed clear error or 6 || made an initial decision that was manifestly unjust, or that there is an intervening change 7 controlling law. See Zimmerman, 255 F.3d at 740 (citing School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah 8 || Cty., 5 F.3d at 1263). 9 Accordingly, the Court DENIES Pawlicki’s motion for reconsideration in its 10 || entirety. 11 12 || IT ISSO ORDERED. 13 14 | Dated: October 18, 2019 © Soo 3 □□ 15 Hon. Anthony J.Battaglia 16 United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28