Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_03-cv-00774/USCOURTS-azd-2_03-cv-00774-3/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

James Erin McKinney, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-03-774-PHX-DGC

DEATH PENALTY CASE

ORDER

Before the Court is Petitioner’s Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment. Dkt. 77.

On August 10, 2009, the Court denied Petitioner’s amended habeas corpus petition. Dkts.

75, 76. In the present motion, Petitioner asks the Court to alter or amend its judgment with

respect to Claim 21, alleging that the death penalty is unconstitutional, and 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 the claims. 

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.

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). 

Case 2:03-cv-00774-DGC Document 78 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

 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 -

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 21 or 22. To be entitled to habeas relief, Petitioner must show that the Arizona

Supreme Court’s rejection of the claims 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 the death penalty,

lethal injection, or Arizona’s protocol 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 three-drug 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 claims

for habeas relief. 

Because Claims 21 and 22 find no support in Supreme Court precedent, reasonable

jurists could not debate this Court’s denial of the claims. 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). 

Case 2:03-cv-00774-DGC Document 78 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 -

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

Judgment, Dkt. 77, is DENIED.

DATED this 28th day of August, 2009.

Case 2:03-cv-00774-DGC Document 78 Filed 08/28/09 Page 3 of 3