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

Debra Jean Milke, ) CV-98-0060-PHX-RCB 

)

Petitioner, ) DEATH PENALTY CASE

)

v. )

) ORDER

Dora B. Schriro, et al., )

)

Respondents. )

)

)

 Before the Court is Petitioner’s Request for Amended Order Re: Certificate of

Appealability. (Dkt. 158.) 

The Court denied Petitioner’s amended habeas corpus petition in an Order and Judgment

dated November 28, 2006. (Dkts. 150, 151.) At that time the Court also issued, sua sponte, a

Certificate of Appealability (“COA”) with respect to Claims I, III, IV(A), and IV(G). (Dkt. 152.)

On December 11, 2006, Petitioner filed a Motion to Amend/Correct Judgment pursuant to Rule

59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, requesting that the Court reconsider its dismissal

of Claims II and III(2) as procedurally barred and its denial of the remainder of Claim III and

Claim VIII on the merits. (Dkt. 153.) The Court denied the motion in an Order filed January

10, 2007. (Dkt. 154.) On February 2, 2007, Petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal. (Dkt. 155.)

The present motion, filed February 12, 2007, seeks a COA with respect to all of

Petitioner’s habeas claims. (Dkt. 158.) The eighty-page motion simply repeats the arguments

Petitioner presented in her amended petition, her traverse on the procedural status of her claims,

Case 2:98-cv-00060-RCB Document 160 Filed 02/16/07 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

1 As the Court previously explained (Dkt. 154), a COA will issue only when the

petitioner has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, a showing

which can be established by demonstrating that “reasonable jurists could debate whether (or,

for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner” or that

the issues were “adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Slack v. McDaniel,

529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). For procedural rulings, a COA will issue only if reasonable jurists

could debate whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right, and

whether the court’s procedural ruling was correct. Id.

- 2 -

her merits brief, and her motion for reconsideration, appending to each argument the standard

for granting a COA.1

 This Court was aware of and applied that standard, and considered and

rejected those arguments, when it denied the amended petition and issued a COA: “the Court on

its own initiative has evaluated the claims within the petition for suitability for the issuance of

a certificate of appealability.” (Dkt. 152.) Because the Court has already determined which

claims were suitable for a COA, and Petitioner has offered nothing that would cause the Court

to revisit its decision, Petitioner’s motion is denied.

Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED denying Petitioner’s Request for Amended Order Re:

Certificate of Appealability (Dkt. 158). 

DATED this 15th day of February, 2007.

Case 2:98-cv-00060-RCB Document 160 Filed 02/16/07 Page 2 of 2