Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_98-cv-00218/USCOURTS-azd-4_98-cv-00218-7/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

Thomas Paul West, )

) CV-98-0218-TUC-DCB

Petitioner, )

) DEATH PENALTY CASE

v. )

)

) ORDER

Dora B. Schriro, et al., )

)

Respondents. )

)

Before the Court is Petitioner’s Motion to Reconsider. (Dkt. 128.) The motion is

brought in response to the Court’s Order denying Petitioner’s amended habeas corpus

petition. (Dkts. 126, 127.) 

DISCUSSION

The Court considers Petitioner’s motion pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules

of Civil procedure. Rule 59(e) offers an “extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the

interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Kona Enter., Inc. v. Estate of

Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). The Ninth Circuit has consistently held that a

motion brought pursuant to Rule 59(e) should only be granted in “highly unusual

circumstances.” Id.; see 389 Orange Street Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir.

1999). Reconsideration is appropriate only if (1) the court is presented with newly

discovered evidence, (2) there is an intervening change in controlling law, or (3) 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). A motion for reconsideration is not a forum for the moving party to make

Case 4:98-cv-00218-DCB Document 130 Filed 12/12/07 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 -

new arguments not raised in its original briefs, Northwest Acceptance Corp. v. Lynnwood

Equip., Inc., 841 F.2d 918, 925-926 (9th Cir. 1988), nor is it the time to ask the 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 seeks reconsideration on several grounds, asserting that there have been

recent changes in controlling law that affect his claims and that the Court’s rulings were

legally and factually erroneous.

Intervening changes in law

Petitioner first contends that there has been an intervening change in the law because

certain judges in the Ninth Circuit have recently opined, in concurring or dissenting opinions,

that the AEDPA violates the separation of powers doctrine. (Dkt. 128 at 5-8.) Petitioner’s

argument is not well taken. In Irons v. Carey, 479 F.3d 658, 665 n.5 (9th Cir. 2007), the

Ninth Circuit, citing its own precedent, upheld the constitutionality of the AEDPA. In Crater

v. Galaza, 491 F.3d 1119, 1124-1130 (9th Cir. 2007), the Ninth Circuit, denying en banc

review, again held that the AEDPA does not violate the separation of powers doctrine. In

short, based upon a review of the cases cited by Petitioner, it is clear that there has been no

intervening change in the law affecting the constitutionality of the AEDPA. 

Petitioner also contends that there has been an intervening change in the law affecting

his claim that lethal injection violates the Eighth Amendment. (Dkt. 128 at 14-15.) While

it is true that the constitutional validity of lethal injection has been the subject of recent

litigation, including the Supreme Court’s grant of certiorari in Baze v. Rees, 128 S. Ct. 34

(2007), there is currently no Supreme Court precedent supporting Petitioner’s claim and

therefore the state court’s rejection of the claim was neither contrary to nor an unreasonable

application of clearly established federal law as required for relief under the AEDPA. 28

U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); see Carey v. Musladin, 127 S. Ct. 649, 653-54 (2006).

Clear error

Petitioner contends that the Court’s Order contained “flawed and incomplete facts.”

(Dkt. 128 at 9.) The Court disagrees. The factual findings challenged by Petitioner were

Case 4:98-cv-00218-DCB Document 130 Filed 12/12/07 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 -

neither inaccurate nor significant to the Court’s analysis.

The remainder of Petitioner’s challenges simply repeat arguments which this Court

has already considered and rejected. Petitioner has offered nothing that would indicate that

the Court committed clear error when it determined that Petitioner’s claims of ineffective

assistance of counsel and judicial bias, including their allegations of “cumulative effect,”

were without merit. Beyond noting again that there were no prejudicial effects to

accumulate, the Court will not “rethink what it has already thought through.” Rezzonico, 32

F. Supp.2d at 1116 (D. Ariz. 1998).

Based on the foregoing, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED denying Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration. (Dkt.

128.) 

DATED this 11th day of December, 2007.

Case 4:98-cv-00218-DCB Document 130 Filed 12/12/07 Page 3 of 3