# Peets

> District Court, N.D. California · February 13, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11363848

## Case

- **Full name:** Louis Peets v. S. Williams, Warden
- **Court:** District Court, N.D. California
- **Decided:** February 13, 2026
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11363848

## Opinion text

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
LOUIS PEETS,
11 Case No. 25-cv-09465 BLF (PR)
Petitioner,
12 ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
v. RECONSIDERATION; VACATING
13 JUDGMENT AND REOPENING
CASE
14 S. WILLIAMS, Warden,

15 Respondent.
(Docket No. 6)
16

17
18 Petitioner, a California prisoner, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant
19 to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his state conviction. Dkt. No. 1. The Court found
20 Petitioner filed a previous habeas petition which was dismissed as procedurally defaulted
21 based on untimeliness.1 Dkt. No. 4 at 2. Because Petitioner challenged the same
22 underlying conviction as in the previous action, the Court found it was a second or
23 successive petition and dismissed the action on January 12, 2026. Id.
24 Petitioner has filed a motion for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil
25 Procedure 59(e), asserting that the petition is not second or successive. Dkt. No. 6. He
26 asserts that his new claims are based on a new state-created liberty interest which was
27
1 enacted by the State of California in 2023. Dkt. No. 6 at 2. He asserts, therefore, that the
2 || new claims could not have been raised at the time of the first petition filed in 2017. Id.
3 A motion for reconsideration under Rule 59(e) “‘should not be granted, absent
4 || highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered
5 || evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the law.’”
6 || McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 1255 (9th Cir. 1999) (citation omitted) (en banc).
7 || Here, the Court finds good cause to grant the motion for reconsideration based on clear
8 || error as the new claims are based on the passage of Senate Bill 467 in 2023 and therefore
g || did not accrue until after his first habeas petition was denied. Dkt. No. | at 15. See Brown
10 || v. Muniz, 889 F.3d 661, 667 (9th Cir. 2018) (petition not second or successive if the factual
11 || predicate for the claim accrued after the time of the initial petition); see also Brown vy.
12 Atchley, 76 F.Ath 862, 873 (9th Cir. 2023) (petitioner’s third and fourth habeas petitions,
13 || regarding his application for Section 1170.95 re-sentencing and related denial of this
14 || application, not second or successive because claims did not become ripe until March 2019
3 15 || when resentencing application was denied, which was after first and second habeas
a 16 || petition were denied or dismissed in 1998 and 2016, respectively). Accordingly,
17 || Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration is GRANTED.
5 18 For the reasons stated above, the Judgment entered on January 12, 2026, Dkt. No. 5,
19 || is VACATED. The Clerk shall reopen this matter.
20 This order terminates Docket No. 6.
21 IT ISSO ORDERED.
22 || Dated: February 12, 2026 fdwnfiicctian
53 ETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge
24
|) pRo-SEBLF HC.2509469Peets grant seoonsseopen
26
27

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11363848. Public record. Not legal advice.