Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_98-cv-00053/USCOURTS-azd-4_98-cv-00053-1/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 1 Dora B. Schriro is substituted for her predecessor, Terry Stewart, as Director,

Arizona Department of Corrections. Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d)(1).

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Joseph Rudolf Wood, III, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Dora B. Schriro, et al.,1

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-98-053-TUC-JMR

DEATH PENALTY CASE

ORDER RE: MOTION TO

RECONSIDER PROCEDURAL

STATUS OF CLAIMS

Before the Court is Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of the Court’s Order of

March 21, 2006 (dkt. 63), which addressed the procedural status of Petitioner’s habeas

claims. Generally, motions for reconsideration are appropriate only if the Court “(1) is

presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision

was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” School

Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993),

cert. denied, 512 U.S. 1236 (1994). A motion for reconsideration should not be used to ask

a court “to rethink what the court had already thought through—rightly or wrongly.” Above

the Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bohannon Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E. D. Va. 1983)). Such

arguments should be directed to the court of appeals. Sullivan v. Faras-RLS Group, Ltd., 795

F. Supp. 305, 309 (D. Ariz. 1992). 

Case 4:98-cv-00053-JGZ Document 67 Filed 04/25/06 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 -

Petitioner asserts that the Court erred in stating that Petitioner did not, in his Traverse,

assert fundamental miscarriage of justice (“FMJ”) as a basis to excuse the procedural default

of a number of claims. (Dkt. 65 at 2.) He contends that the general summary of the law

regarding FMJ contained in the opening section of the Traverse together with the statement

in the closing paragraph of that 157-page document, “pointed to the facts which support the

fundamental miscarriage of justice argument.” (Id. at 3.) Petitioner further contends that,

in finding no FMJ as to several of his defaulted claims, the Court ignored:

compelling evidence regarding the lack of premeditation: expert testimony that

Petitioner had a character trait of impulsivity, tended to act reflexively and without

deliberation, had “difficulty in organizing his thinking when faced with

“emotionally charged stimuli[,]” that his reality testing deteriorated under such

circumstances, and that “his judgement and his interpretation of events would

become clouded. Additional evidence supported the expert’s diagnosis,

demonstrating that Petitioner was confused about his relationship with his

girlfriend, that his anxiety was causing him to deteriorate in the days before the

crime, and that he was exhibiting severe mood swings during that period.

Petitioner reached for his gun and shot the victims only after his request to see his

girlfriend was denied and even though he knew a police officer was nearby. All

of these facts, coupled with the prosecutor’s misconduct, establish the miscarriage

of justice, not just the misconduct alone. 

(Id. at 4-5) (internal citations omitted). 

Petitioner’s contentions in his motion repeat the unavailing assertions contained in his

amended petition and traverse. He has not demonstrated, with clear and convincing

evidence, that it is more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have found him guilty

of first degree murder. Because Petitioner does not point to newly discovered evidence, an

intervening change in the law or clear error by the Court, his motion for reconsideration will

be denied. 

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration of Procedural Order is

DENIED. (Dkt. 65.)

DATED this 25th day of April, 2006.

Case 4:98-cv-00053-JGZ Document 67 Filed 04/25/06 Page 2 of 2