found and produced at the trial.... ” In this case, the Petitioner did not present any evidence as to why the new psychological report to be introduced could not, with reasonable diligence, have been presented before the Court at Petitioner’s first hearing. The Court can make no finding that there is any new evidence and must, therefore, according to M.S.A. § 590.03(3) summarily deny the Petitioner’s second petition for post conviction relief under the Minnesota Guidelines. This appeal followed. In his brief petitioner’s attorney argues that the second petition was not based on newly discovered evidence but on evidence of petitioner’s present psychological condition, which is steadily improving. Specifically, he s 69), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 875, 90 S.Ct. 151, 24 L.Ed.2d 134 (1969) (<HOLDING>). Applying the principles underlying Minn.
holding that one of the essential elements of an abuse of process claim is the existence of an ulterior motive recognizing that a claim is an assertion of a right and if there is no assertion of a right there is no claim to deduct holding that to establish a claim for abuse of process a claimant must demonstrate  an act in the use of the process not proper in the regular prosecution of the proceedings holding that an assertion by a petitioner of the same claims a second time around is an abuse of process and that in such a situation summary disposition is proper holding that an assertion of prejudice is not a showing of prejudice