Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_97-cv-01331/USCOURTS-azd-2_97-cv-01331-3/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

David Martinez Ramirez, 

Petitioner, 

v.

Dora B. Schriro, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 97-1331-PHX-JAT

DEATH PENALTY CASE

ORDER RE: 

MOTION TO RECONSIDER

Pending before the Court is Respondents’ Motion to Reconsider. (Dkt. 161).

Respondents seek reconsideration of the Court’s March 20, 2007 Order (Dkt. 158), to the

extent it granted Petitioner leave to amend to add Claim 34. 

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

presented with newly discovered evidence, if there is an intervening change in controlling

law, or if the court committed clear error. McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 1255 (9th

Cir. 1999) (per curiam); see School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc.,

5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). Respondents contend it was clear error for the Court to

grant amendment. 

First, Respondents argue that Claim 34 does not relate back to Claim 8, thereby

satisfying the statute of limitations, because Claim 8 was previously dismissed by the Court.

As Respondents note, they made this argument in their responsive motion brief (see Dkt. 147

at 17), therefore, it is not an appropriate argument for a motion for reconsideration. See

United States v. Rezzonico, 32 F. Supp.2d 1112, 1116 (D. Ariz. 1998) (a motion for

Case 2:97-cv-01331-JAT Document 164 Filed 04/13/07 Page 1 of 3
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 -

reconsideration is not the time to ask the court to “rethink what it has already thought

through”). Further, Rule 15 provides that an amendment relates back to an original pleading

if it arises out of an occurrence set forth in the original pleading. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

15(c)(2). The rule contains no other requirements, and Respondents cite no authority for

their argument that Claim 34 cannot relate back to a dismissed claim that was set forth in the

original pleading.

Second, Respondents dispute the Court’s characterization of the timeliness of

Petitioner’s investigation, exhaustion and amendment as to Claim 34, and suggest it may

amount to bad faith. Respondents made no argument regarding bad faith in their responsive

motion brief, thus, it is inappropriate to do so now. See Northwest Acceptance Corp. v.

Lynnwood Equip., Inc., 841 F.2d 918, 925-26 (9th Cir. 1988) (a motion for reconsideration

is not a forum for the moving party to make new arguments not raised in its original briefs).

Moreover, although the Court indicated that Petitioner “appears” to have been diligent, it

recognized that there was some undue delay in raising the claim; however, the Court’s

ultimate conclusion was that on balance of all the factors, in light of the strong policy

favoring amendment, that amendmentit was warranted. (See Dkt. 158 at 15-16.) Thus,

disagreement over Petitioner’s “diligence” does not alter the Court’s analysis.

Finally, Respondents argue it was erroneous for the Court to find that Respondents

did not contend in the motion briefing that they would be prejudiced by amendment because

they argued delay, which in their view is inherently prejudicial. Undue prejudice to the

opposing party is one of the factors that supports denying a motion to amend and is distinct

from the factor of undue delay, see Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); thus, it was

Respondents’ burden to argue prejudice if they thought it was applicable. To the extent

Respondents argued delay in the execution of judgment, the Court addressed the argument

and concluded that, due to the current stay of proceedings, amendment would not delay final

resolution of this case. (See Dkt. 158 at 16.) The conclusory argument that “Respondents

believe any additional amendments will add to the delay,” does not counter the Court’s

Case 2:97-cv-01331-JAT Document 164 Filed 04/13/07 Page 2 of 3
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

- 3 -

assessment nor demonstrate clear error.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Respondents’ Motion for Reconsideration

(Dkt. 161) is DENIED.

DATED this 12th day of April, 2007.

Case 2:97-cv-01331-JAT Document 164 Filed 04/13/07 Page 3 of 3