Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-02981/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-02981-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 1

Similarly, under Rule 52(b), a party may move the court to “amend its findings – or

make additional findings – and . . . amend the judgment accordingly.”

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

NOT FOR CITATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEITH S. HITCHINGS,

Petitioner, No. C 05-2981 PJH

v.

ORDER DENYING MOTION

FOR NEW TRIAL AND/OR 

TO AMEND JUDGMENT

ROSANNE CAMPBELL, Warden, 

Mule Creek State Prison,

Respondent.

_______________________________/

On May 23, 2006, this court denied petitioner Keith Hitchings’ (“Hitchings”) petition

for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Hitchings now moves for a new

trial and to alter or amend the judgment pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59

and 52(b). Having considered Hitchings’ motion and the relevant authorities, the court

DENIES the motion.

The Ninth Circuit held, in a § 2254 habeas case, that “[a] motion for reconsideration

under Rule 59(e) should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the

district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there

is an intervening change in the controlling law.” McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253,

1255 (9th Cir. 1999).1

 

Here, Hitchings has shown none of the above. Hitchings does argue that this court’s

Case 4:05-cv-02981-PJH Document 15 Filed 07/11/06 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

suggestion that the state appellate court considered on the merits a supplemental letter

brief from Hitchings’ state appellate counsel, attached as an exhibit to Hitchings’ federal

petition, is erroneous. However, it is not clear to the court based on the record before it

that the state appellate court did not indeed consider the letter brief on the merits. 

Neverthless, even if it did not, as Hitchings suggests, he is not entitled to relief based on

the deficient performance prong of the test for ineffective assistance of counsel because

this court also found that pursuant to Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984),

Hitchings was unable to demonstrate prejudice. See May 23, 2006 Order at 20-24.

CONCLUSION

Because Hitchings offers no new evidence, nor does he demonstrate any error in

law or fact upon which the judgment was based entitling him to relief, his Rule 52 and/or 59

motion is DENIED. This order fully adjudicates the motion listed at No. 14 of the clerk’s

docket for this case and terminates all other pending motions. The clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 11, 2006 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:05-cv-02981-PJH Document 15 Filed 07/11/06 Page 2 of 2