Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_03-cv-00478/USCOURTS-azd-4_03-cv-00478-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 535
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus - Death Penalty
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

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

Robert Glen Jones, Jr., 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-03-478-TUC-DCB

DEATH PENALTY CASE

ORDER AND AMENDED

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

Before the Court is Petitioner’s Motion for New Trial or Reconsideration pursuant to

Rule 59, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Dkt. 84.) On January 29, 2010, the Court denied

Petitioner’s amended petition for writ of habeas corpus, granted a certificate of appealability

(COA) for one claim, and entered judgment. (Dkts. 79, 80.) In the present motion, Petitioner

asks the Court to alter or amend its judgment with respect to two claims. He further requests

that the Court grant a COA on additional issues.

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. Such a motion 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,

Case 4:03-cv-00478-DCB Document 85 Filed 03/10/10 Page 1 of 4
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 -

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 new arguments not raised in its original briefs, Northwest Acceptance

Corp. v. Lynnwood Equip., Inc., 841 F.2d 918, 925-26 (9th Cir. 1988), or 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 asserts that the Court committed clear error in denying Claim 1-A, that

newly-discovered evidence supports habeas relief on Claim 1-D, and that a COA should

issue for all of the prosecutorial misconduct allegations set forth in Claim 1. The Court

declines to reconsider Claims 1-A and 1-D but will expand the COA to include the entirety

of Claim 1.

Claim 1-A

In his petition, Petitioner asserted that the prosecutor suborned perjury from detectives

concerning a kicked-in door at the Moon Smoke Shop in an effort to bolster the testimony

of Lana Irwin, who claimed she overheard Petitioner mention that he had kicked in a door

during the offense. The Court found that this claim was never fairly presented in state court

and considered as cause for the procedural default whether appellate counsel was ineffective

for failing to raise the claim on direct appeal. (Dkt. 79 at 11-12.)

Petitioner argues that the perpetrators of the Smoke Shop murders could not have

known a door was kicked in since it did not occur until after they left, when the door was

kicked in by the police. (Dkt. 84 at 3.) Thus, the information could not have come from

Petitioner, and Irwin must have been told by the police or prosecutor to say the door was

kicked in or showed her pictures of the scene to help fabricate her story. (Id.)

The Court thoroughly addressed this claim in its January 2010 order and declines to

rethink what it has already thought through. (Dkt. 79 at 12-18.) Petitioner does not identify

Case 4:03-cv-00478-DCB Document 85 Filed 03/10/10 Page 2 of 4
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 -

clear error; rather, he reurges the same arguments already considered and rejected by the

Court. Reconsideration is denied. 

Claim 1-D

Petitioner alleged that the prosecutor knowingly made a false avowal that the phone

used to electronically monitor David Nordstrom was the same phone found to be operating

properly in testing conducted prior to trial. Petitioner based this misconduct allegation on

the fact that David’s mother, Theresa Nordstrom, had already testified at Scott Nordstrom’s

trial that the tested phone was not the same one used to monitor David’s whereabouts. In the

instant motion, Petitioner has proffered “newly-discovered” evidence in the form of an

affidavit from Theresa Nordstrom that the prosecutor was at her house during the testing and

heard her say that the phone being tested was not the one used to monitor David. (Dkt. 84,

Ex. A.)

 The Court declines to consider this evidence because it is not newly discovered. The

affidavit is dated July 6, 2009, approximately six months prior to this Court’s ruling, and

Petitioner has failed to allege, let alone show, that it could not have been obtained earlier.

In addition, it does not appear that Petitioner acted diligently to develop this evidence in state

court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2); Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 420 (2000).

Certificate of Appealability

The Court granted a COA on Claim 1-A. Petitioner asks that the COA be expanded

to include the remaining allegations of prosecutorial misconduct set forth in Claim 1. Upon

further consideration, the Court finds that reasonable jurists could debate the entirety of

Petitioner’s claim and thus will expand the COA.

Based on the foregoing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for New Trial or

Reconsideration (Dkt. 84) is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part. To the extent

Petitioner seeks to alter or amend the judgment, that aspect of his motion is denied. To the

extent Petitioner seeks an amended Certificate of Appealability, that aspect of his motion is

granted. 

Case 4:03-cv-00478-DCB Document 85 Filed 03/10/10 Page 3 of 4
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

- 4 -

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Certificate of Appealability is amended to

include the following issue: 

Whether Petitioner has established cause and prejudice to overcome the

procedural default of Claim 1, which alleges various instances of prosecutorial

misconduct.

DATED this 9th day of March, 2010.

Case 4:03-cv-00478-DCB Document 85 Filed 03/10/10 Page 4 of 4