Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00528/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00528-3/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)

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Robert F. Lindley, Jr., 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Dora B. Schriro, et. al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 06-0528-PHX-DGC

ORDER

Petitioner has filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s order directing

Respondents to file a response to Petitioner’s objections to the second Report and

Recommendation. Dkt. #28. The Court will deny Petitioner’s motion.

Motions for reconsideration must be filed within ten days of a court order. Fed. R.

Civ. P. 59(e). The Court issued its order on April 6, 2007, and Petitioner filed his motion for

reconsideration on April 26, 2007. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration is untimely, but

the Court will address it.

Relief may be granted under Rule 59(e) if the Court “(1) is presented with newly

discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust,

or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah

County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993) (citation and internal

quotation marks omitted). Petitioner essentially argues that he has newly discovered

evidence in the form of medical literature that supports his position and that the Court’s order

Case 2:06-cv-00528-DGC Document 29 Filed 06/06/07 Page 1 of 2
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 -

was manifestly unjust because it did not direct Respondents to provide him with a copy of

medical records relevant to his conviction. Dkt. #28 at 2. He requests that the Court order

Respondents to make available to the Court and to him all medical evidence relevant to his

conviction and all exculpatory witness interview evidence. Id. at 2. Petitioner then requests

the opportunity to introduce the medical literature that he believes will establish his actual

innocence in conjunction with the medical records, which Petitioner states he has never been

allowed to view. Id. at 2.

The Court’s order directing Respondents to respond to Petitioner’s objections and to

turn over any exculpatory evidence in its possession pursuant to its duty under Brady v.

Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and Thomas v. Goldsmith, 979 F.2d 746 (9th Cir. 1992), will

adequately address concerns Petitioner raises in his motion. The Court indicated that it

would conduct an in camera review of any such evidence to protect the interests of the

victim, so the Court will not, as Petitioner requests, issue redacted versions of the records to

Petitioner. Dkt. #25 at 2. Additionally, the Court finds it unnecessary to order Respondents

to produce all medical records instead of only those that are exculpatory. Once the Court has

reviewed the evidence provided by Respondents, the Court will determine whether Petitioner

may supplement his objections with the recently acquired medical literature.

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion to Reconsider in Part April Order, and

Response to Respondent’s Extension of Time (Dkt. #28) is denied.

DATED this 6th day of June, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-00528-DGC Document 29 Filed 06/06/07 Page 2 of 2