United States District Court, N.D. California
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO
FILE A MOTION TO RECONSIDER DEATH PENALTY CASE Re: Dkt. No.
D. FOGEL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
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.
Standard of Review
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).
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.
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.
Claim 17 ...