Hewlett v. Warden
- Wilhelmina Wright
- 0:18-cv-02293
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Hewlett v. Warden, Judge Wright denied Auzio Hewlett’s request to reconsider the earlier denial of his petition challenging detention.
Auzio Hewlett, whose motion to reconsider was denied; the earlier denial of his petition remained unchanged.
What happened
In Hewlett v. Warden, Auzio Hewlett asked the court to reconsider its August 5, 2019 order denying his petition challenging his detention.
Hewlett had not obtained the court’s required permission to seek reconsideration. Treating his filing as a request for that permission, the court found that he had not shown the compelling circumstances required by the local rules.
Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright denied Hewlett’s motion to reconsider. The order addressed only the request for reconsideration and did not change the earlier denial of his petition.
The detailed version
- Hewlett v. Warden · No. 0:18-cv-02293
- Wilhelmina Wright
- Aug. 29, 2019
Background
The court had previously denied Petitioner Auzio Hewlett’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus in an August 5, 2019 order. Hewlett then filed a motion asking the court to reconsider that decision. The opinion describes Hewlett’s filing as pro se, meaning he filed it without a lawyer.
Legal standard
Under Local Rule 7.1(j), a party must obtain the court’s permission before filing a motion for reconsideration and must show compelling circumstances. Reconsideration is limited to correcting a clear legal or factual error or presenting newly discovered evidence. It cannot be used to introduce evidence that could have been presented earlier or to raise new legal theories for the first time.
Court’s analysis and ruling
Hewlett had not asked for permission to file the motion. Even treating his pro se filing as a request for permission, the court concluded that he had not shown compelling circumstances warranting reconsideration. The court therefore denied Hewlett’s motion to reconsider, docketed as Dkt. 22. The order did not state that the motion was denied with or without prejudice.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.