(HC)Hayes

facts previously concealed by Petitioner, and that came to light after such leave was granted” and 23 to issue a “new order denying such leave and ordering that Petitioner must stand on the original 24 Petition as filed.” ECF No. 31 at 7. Respondent’s motion is not a motion to dismiss, but rather, a 25 motion for reconsideration of the court’s order granting petitioner’s motion to amend. So 26 construed, the court reconsiders that order, and after such reconsideration, confirms its earlier 27 analysis that leave to amend was properly granted. 28 Background On July 10, 2019, this action was opened with the filing of a pro se petition. ECF No. 1. On September 30, 2019, Mr. Such appeared as counsel for petitioner. ECF No. 16. In a declaration filed by Mr. Such, he states that he has been involved in petitioner’s criminal proceedings, on and off, for nearly forty years. See ECF No. 20 ¶ 1 (stating that he was initially appointed on April 6, 1982, to represent petitioner in his automatic appeal from the sentence of death); see also id. ¶ 2 (stating that following a successful appeal and new trial, petitioner received a…