Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_02-cv-00110/USCOURTS-azd-2_02-cv-00110-1/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

Charles Michael Hedlund, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-02-110-PHX-DGC

DEATH PENALTY CASE

ORDER

Before the Court is Petitioner’s Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment and Alter or

Make Additional Findings. Dkt. 150. On August 10, 2009, the Court denied Petitioner’s

amended habeas corpus petition. Dkts. 147, 148. In the present motion, Petitioner asks the

Court to alter or amend its judgment with respect to Claim 22, alleging that Arizona’s lethal

injection protocol violates the Eighth Amendment. In the alternative, Petitioner requests a

certificate of appealability with respect to Claim 22. Petitioner also seeks to expand the

record on appeal to include additional documents from state court.

DISCUSSION

A motion to alter or amend judgment under Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure is in essence a motion for reconsideration. Motions for reconsideration are

disfavored and appropriate only if the court is “presented with newly discovered evidence,

committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.” McDowell

v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 1255 (9th Cir. 1999) (per curiam) (quoting 389 Orange St.

Case 2:02-cv-00110-DGC Document 151 Filed 08/28/09 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

1

 Petitioner is a plaintiff in Dickens v. Brewer. In Dickens the plaintiffs alleged,

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, that Arizona’s lethal injection protocol violated the Eighth

Amendment. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants, finding that

“the Arizona Protocol does not subject inmates to a substantial risk of serious harm and does

not violate the Eighth Amendment” and “the record does not demonstrate a substantial risk

that Defendants will violate the Arizona Protocol in the future in a manner that is sure or very

likely to cause needless suffering.” Dickens v. Brewer, No. 07-CV-1770, 2009 WL 1904294,

at *25 (D. Ariz. July 1, 2009).

- 2 -

Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999)); see School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah

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

Petitioner asserts that there has been an intervening change in the facts and the law

since he exhausted his lethal injection claim in state court. Petitioner refers to the decision

of the United States Supreme Court in Baze v. Rees, 128 S. Ct. 1520 (2008), modifications

made by the Arizona Department of Corrections to its lethal injection protocol, and ongoing

litigation of the issue in state court. None of these factors affect the Court’s analysis of

Claim 22. To be entitled to habeas relief on this claim, Petitioner must show that the Arizona

Supreme Court’s rejection of the claim was contrary to or an unreasonable application of

clearly established federal law or based on an unreasonable determination of the facts. 28

U.S.C. § 2254(d). There is no clearly established federal law holding that lethal injection in

general or Arizona’s protocol in particular constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. See

Baze v. Rees, 128 S. Ct. at 1530 (“This Court has never invalidated a State’s chosen

procedure for carrying out a sentence of death as the infliction of cruel and unusual

punishment.”) To the contrary, Baze upheld the constitutional validity of Kentucky’s threedrug lethal injection protocol. Id. at 1537-38. Arizona’s three-drug protocol, which was

modified after Baze, is “substantially similar” to the protocol approved by the United States

Supreme Court. Dickens v. Brewer, No. 07-CV-1770, 2009 WL 1904294, at *25 (D. Ariz.

July 1, 2009).1

 Thus, the intervening changes in facts and law cited by Petitioner do not

support his claim for habeas relief.

Case 2:02-cv-00110-DGC Document 151 Filed 08/28/09 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 -

Because Claim 22 finds no support in Supreme Court precedent, reasonable jurists

could not debate this Court’s denial of the claim. Therefore, Petitioner is not entitled to a

certificate of appealability. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(2). 

Finally, because Petitioner has included as an exhibit to the instant motion the

documents with which he seeks to expand the record, Dkt. 150, Ex. 5, it is unnecessary for

the Court to take further action on his request. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion to Alter or Amend the

Judgment and Alter or Make Additional Findings, Dkt. 150, is DENIED.

DATED this 28th day of August, 2009.

Case 2:02-cv-00110-DGC Document 151 Filed 08/28/09 Page 3 of 3