Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_92-cv-02076/USCOURTS-azd-2_92-cv-02076-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 535
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus - Death Penalty
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Ptn for Writ of H/C - Stay of Execution

---

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

Donald Edward Beaty, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Charles L. Ryan, et al.,

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-92-2076-PHX-SRB

DEATH PENALTY CASE

ORDER

Petitioner moves this Court to reconsider its Order denying the parties’ joint request for

an Order authorizing a confidential contact visit between Petitioner and a neuropsychologist,

in support of his upcoming clemency application. (Doc. 348.)

Motions for reconsideration are disfavored and appropriate only if the court is presented

with newly discovered evidence, if the court committed clear error or made a decision that

was manifestly unjust, or there is an intervening change in controlling law. See Zimmerman

v. City of Oakland, 255 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir. 2001). A motion for reconsideration is not

a forum for the moving party to make new arguments not raised in the original briefs, id., nor

is it the time to ask a court to “rethink what it has already thought through,” United States

v. Rezzonico, 32 F. Supp.2d 1112, 1116 (D. Ariz. 1998) (quotation omitted).

Petitioner argues that the Court committed clear error in concluding it did not have

jurisdiction to issue the stipulated Order in this terminated habeas action. (Doc. 348.) The

Court did not clearly err; rather, the Court properly held that this case is moot, having lost

its character as a present live controversy and, consequently, the Court lacks jurisdiction to

Case 2:92-cv-02076-SRB Document 349 Filed 08/12/10 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 -

issue an order in a moot case. (See Doc. 346) (citing Hall v. Beals, 396 U.S. 45, 48 (1969);

American Rivers v. National Marine Fisheries, 126 F.3d 1118, 1123 (9th Cir. 1997).) 

Petitioner argues that United States v. Perez, 475 F.3d 1110 (9th Cir. 2007) supports his

argument for jurisdiction. Perez is not helpful to Petitioner. At issue in Perez was whether

the district court violated remand instructions issued by the Ninth Circuit. The discussion

regarding whether the district court violated its mandate was certainly in the context of a

“live controversy,” not a moot case. Id. at 1113. 

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED denying Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration. (Doc.

348.)

DATED this 12th day of August, 2010.

Case 2:92-cv-02076-SRB Document 349 Filed 08/12/10 Page 2 of 2