govinfo:USCOURTS-casd-3_25-cv-01128-2

1 
3:25-cv-1128-BEN-DDL 
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 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 
 
ALEXANDER ROBERT JACOME, 
Petitioner, 
v. 
GAVIN NEWSOM,  
 
Respondent. 
 Case No.:  3:25-cv-1128-BEN-DDL 
 
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 
MODIFICATION OF JUDGMENT 
 
[Doc. No. 14] 
 
BACKGROUND 
On May 1, 2025, Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for 
Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §  2254, along with a request to proceed in 
forma pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §  1915(a). Doc. Nos. 1 & 2. On July 14, 
2025, Petitioner was granted IFP status but his habeas petition was dismissed for failure to 
state a cognizable claim for relief under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases 
(“Habeas Rules”), which provides for summary dismissal of a habeas petition “[i]f it 
plainly appears from the face of the petition and any attached exhibits that the petition is 
not entitled to relief in the district cour t. . ..” Rule 4, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. Specifically, 
the Court determined Petitioner is not presently entitled to habeas relief because he has not 
alleged the state court violated his federal rights . See Doc. No. 8  at 2–3. The Court also 
noted that Petitioner could not simply amend his petition to state a federal claim because 
Case 3:25-cv-01128-BEN-DDL     Document 15     Filed 03/11/26     PageID.<pageID> 
Page 1 of 3
 
2 
3:25-cv-1128-BEN-DDL 
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 
he must first exhaust those claims in state court. Id. at 3–4. Thus, the Court dismissed the 
action and entered judgment. Doc. Nos. 8, 9.  
After judgment was entered, Petitioner filed a Motion to Amend/Correct and Motion 
to Reopen Case on July 28, 2025. Doc. No. 10. Thereafter, he  filed a supplemental 
document. Doc. No. 11. On September 26, 2026, the Court denied both motions because 
Petitioner had failed to cure the defect s outlined in the Court’s July 14, 2025 dismissal 
order. See Doc. No. 12.  
On November 28, 2025, Petitioner filed a “Rule 59 Motion for Modification of 
Judgment.” Doc. No. 14. In it, Petitioner asks the Court  modify the judgment and 
“consolidate[] together” his criminal cases and appeals in state court. Id. at 5. He also asks 
the Court to exercise “supplemental jurisdiction” over his state criminal cases under 28 
U.S.C. § 1367. Id. at 4.  
DISCUSSION 
 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure  59(e) permits a party  to file a “motion to alter or 
amend a judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)  “The time for doing so is short —28 days from 
entry of the judgment, with no possibility of an extension. ” Banister v. Davis , 590 U.S. 
504, 507–08 (2020) (citing Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 6(b)(2) ); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). 
Here, judgment was entered on July 14, 2025 and as such, Petitioner’s November 28, 2025 
Rule 59 Motion is untimely. Because Petitioner is proceeding pro se, howev er, the Court 
will construe Plaintiff’s under Rule 60(b). See Aronson v. Dog Eat Dog Films, Inc., 738 F. 
Supp. 2d 1104, 1120 (W.D. Wash. 2010)  (“[T]he court may construe an untimely motion 
for reconsideration brought under Rule 59(e) as a motion based on Rule 60(b).”).   
Under Rule 60(b), a “court may relieve a party . . . from a final . . . order . .  . for the 
following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly 
discovered evidence . . .; (3) fraud .  . ., misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing 
party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; 
it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it 
prospectively is no longe r equitable; or (6) any other reas on that justifies relief.” Fed. R. 
Case 3:25-cv-01128-BEN-DDL     Document 15     Filed 03/11/26     PageID.<pageID> 
Page 2 of 3
 
3 
3:25-cv-1128-BEN-DDL 
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 
Civ. P. 60(b). “Motions for relief from judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b) are addressed to 
the sound discretion of the district court.” Casey v. Albertson’s Inc., 362 F.3d 1254, 1257 
(9th Cir. 2004).   
Here, Petitioner’s motion also fails under Rule 60(b) because Petitioner does not 
state adequate grounds for reconsideration. A motion for reconsideration “may not be used 
to raise arguments or present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have 
been raised earlier in the litigation.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Est. of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 
(9th Cir. 2000) (emphasis in original). And in his motion, Petitioner makes an entirely new 
request that the Court to “consolidate” his state court criminal cases and exercise 
“supplemental jurisdiction” over them pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Doc. No. 14 at 1, 4.  
First, the Court notes  supplemental jurisdiction does not apply to federal habeas 
proceedings because, as previously discussed, this court has no federal habeas jurisdiction 
over any claims alleging violations of state law. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) (stating “a district 
court shall entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person in 
custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody 
in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States”).  
Furthermore, Petitioner sets forth no specific basis for reconsideration based on 
mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. Nor does he present any newly 
discovered evidence, or assert fraud by the Respondent, voiding or satisfaction of the 
judgment, or any other reason justifying relief. As such, Petitioner has failed to show that 
reconsideration is warranted under Rule 60(b).  
Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s Motion for 
Modification of Judgment [Doc. No. 14]. The Clerk shall close the file. 
IT IS SO ORDERED. 
Dated: March 11, 2026  
              Hon. Roger T. Benitez 
           United States District Judge 
 
Case 3:25-cv-01128-BEN-DDL     Document 15     Filed 03/11/26     PageID.<pageID> 
Page 3 of 3

Passage view · GavelSight