Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-00915/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-00915-4/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 

Dell Rainbow Vanderschuit,

Petitioner, 

v. 

Charles L Ryan, et al., 

Respondents.

No. CV-15-00915-PHX-JAT

ORDER 

 Pending before this Court is Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of this Court’s 

denial of his request for a certificate of appealability. Petitioner makes several arguments 

in support of this motion. 

 First, Petitioner objects that this Court addressed the certificate of appealability in 

the order on the merits, rather than by separate motion. (Doc. 59 at 2). This argument 

fails because, based on a 2009 amendment to the Rules Governing Section 2254 

Proceedings for the United States District Courts, “The district court must issue or deny a 

certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant.” Rule 

11(a). Therefore, Petitioner’s request for reconsideration on this basis is denied. 

 Second, Petitioner objects to this Court having adopted the R&R’s recounting of 

the factual and procedural background of Petitioner’s state court case as unobjected to by 

either party. Instead, Petitioner argues he objected to “both fact and law”. (Doc. 59 at 4). 

However, in neither his original objections nor his motion for reconsideration does 

Petitioner point to a single factual error he has identified in the R&R. Instead, Petitioner 

Case 2:15-cv-00915-JAT Document 60 Filed 02/06/17 Page 1 of 2
- 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 

argues that the undisputed facts should not result in him being guilty of a crime; but he 

never argues that the facts, as recounted by the R&R, are inaccurate. Therefore, this 

basis for reconsideration is denied. 

 Third, Petitioner takes issue with his failure to raise certain arguments on direct 

appeal resulting in a waiver of those claims in state court. (Doc. 59 at 5-13). This Court 

addressed and rejected this argument in the Order on the merits of Petitioner’s petition. 

(Doc. 55 at 7-8). Nothing in Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration justifies the Court 

reconsidering this decision.1

 Thus, for the reasons stated in this Court’s December 21, 

2016 Order, the motion for reconsideration on this basis is denied. 

 Fourth and finally, Petitioner seeks reconsideration based on his general belief that 

he cannot be guilty of the crime of attempt if he does not complete the ultimate crime (in 

this case attempted child prostitution). (Doc. 59 at 15-17). To the extent this argument 

was properly before this Court, this Court addressed it (either as a claimed error of state 

law or a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel) in the December 21, 2016 Order. 

(Doc. 55). Nothing in Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration justifies reconsideration of 

this decision.2

 Accordingly, reconsideration on this basis is denied. 

 For the reasons stated above, the Court is not persuaded to reconsider the denial of 

a certificate of appealability in this case. Therefore, 

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of this Court’s 

denial of a certificate of appealability (Doc. 59) is denied. 

 Dated this 6th day of February, 2017. 

 

 

 

1

 “A Rule 59 motion should not be granted ‘unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.’” McQuillion v. Duncan, 343 F.3d 1012, 1014 (9th Cir. 

2003) (quoting McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 1255 (9th Cir. 1999)(en banc)). 

Nothing in Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration meets any of these tests. 

2

 See footnote 1. 

Case 2:15-cv-00915-JAT Document 60 Filed 02/06/17 Page 2 of 2