Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02853/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02853-8/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)

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HAROLD HAWKS,

Petitioner,

 v.

ANTHONY P. KANE,

Respondent.

 /

No. C 05-2853 JSW

AMENDED ORDER DENYING

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A

MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION OR, IN THE

ALTERNATIVE, MOTION FOR

RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT

UNDER FEDERAL RULE OF

CIVIL PROCEDURE 60(b)

This Order has been amended solely to reflect to correct case number.

This matter comes before the Court upon consideration of the motion for leave to file a

motion to reconsider filed on December 15, 2006, by Petitioner Harold H. Hawks (“Hawks”). 

Hawks seeks leave to file a motion for reconsideration pursuant to Northern District Local Rule

7-9 and pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1) and 60(b)(6). 

Under local rule 7-9, a party may seek leave to file a motion for reconsideration any time

before judgment. N.D. Civ. L.R. 7-9(a). A motion for reconsideration may be made on one of

three grounds: (1) a material difference in fact or law exists from that which was presented to

the Court, which, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, the party applying for reconsideration

did not know at the time of the order; (2) the emergence of new material facts or a change of

law; or (3) a manifest failure by the Court to consider material facts or dispositive legal

arguments presented before entry of judgment. N.D. Civ. L.R. 7-9(b)(1)-(3). The moving party

may not regargue any written or oral argument previously asserted to the Court. Id., 7-9(c).

Case 3:05-cv-02853-JSW Document 38 Filed 12/20/06 Page 1 of 2
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), “upon such terms as are just, the court may

relieve a party or a party’s legal representative from a final judgment, order or proceeding for

the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; ... or (6) any

other reason justifying relief from the operation of judgment.”

Hawks seeks reconsideration of the judgment entered on November 21, 2006, upon this

Court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Hawks contends that the law has

changed materially and has been clarified since the Court issued its Order. To the extent Hawks

relies on Rule 60(b), the Court has considered Hawks arguments in favor of reconsideration,

finds them unpersuasive and finds no reason to amend or reconsider its judgment. To the extent

Hawks relies on Local Rule 7-9, the Court also denies the motion because it was filed after entry

of judgment and because the Court does not find that there has been a material change in the law

since the Order was issued. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 20, 2006 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-02853-JSW Document 38 Filed 12/20/06 Page 2 of 2