Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Dennis v. Davis

United States District Court, N.D. California

April 3, 2018

WILLIAM MICHAEL DENNIS, Petitioner,
v.
RON DAVIS, Warden of California State Prison at San Quentin, Respondent.

          ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A MOTION TO RECONSIDER DEATH PENALTY CASE Re: Dkt. No. 427.

          JEREMY D. FOGEL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Background

         On December 19, 2017, this Court issued an Order denying Claims 3, 7, and 11 of the instant petition. See Dkt. No. 423. The Court made its decision after holding a three-day evidentiary hearing featuring lengthy testimony from several expert witnesses and considering the parties' extensive pleadings, filings, and post-hearing briefs. See Dkt. Nos. 388-390, 401, 403, & 408. On March 7, 2018, Petitioner filed a motion for leave to file a motion to reconsider the Order. See Dkt. No. 427.

         Discussion

         a. Standard of Review

         Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-9(b), a party moving for leave to file a motion to reconsider is required to show:

(1) That at the time of the motion for leave, a material difference in fact or law exists from that which was presented to the Court before entry of the interlocutory order for which reconsideration is sought. The party also mush show that in the exercise of reasonable diligence the party applying for reconsideration did not know such fact or law at the time of the interlocutory order; or
(2) The emergence of new material facts or a change of law occurring after the time of such order; or
(3) A manifest failure by the Court to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments which were presented to the Court before such interlocutory order.

See Civil L.R. 7-9(b).

         As discussed below, Petitioner has not shown that any of these circumstances exist. Even if he had, the Court would reject Petitioner's arguments on the merits.

         b. Analysis

         Petitioner argues the Court should grant his request for leave to file a motion to reconsider because there was a "manifest failure by the Court to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments which were presented to the Court before such interlocutory order." See Civil L.R. 7-9(b)(3). Specifically, Petitioner argues this Court applied the wrong standard of review to Claim 17, erred in ruling on Claims 3, 11, and 17 in the "absence of merits briefing, " and erred in denying the claims without "receiving lay witness testimony." See Dkt. No. 427 at 2, 5, & 8.

         1. Claim 17 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.