Styers v. Ryan

Filing 36

ORDER denying 34 to Alter or Amend Judgment; denying 35 Motion for Certificate of Appealability. Signed by Senior Judge James A Teilborg on 10/24/2017.(KAS)

Download PDF
1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 James Lynn Styers, Petitioner, 10 11 v. 12 No. CV-12-02332-PHX-JAT ORDER Charles L. Ryan, et al., 13 DEATH PENALTY CASE Respondents. 14 15 Before the Court is Styers’s Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment. (Doc. 34.) 16 Pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Styers asks the Court to 17 alter or amend its order and judgment denying his habeas petition. (Docs. 32, 33.) Also 18 before the Court is Styers’s motion for a certificate of appealability. (Doc. 35.) For the 19 reasons set forth below, the motions are denied. 20 1. Motion to Alter/Amend 21 A Rule 59(e) motion is an “extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the 22 interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Wood v. Ryan, 759 F.3d 23 1117, 1121 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 24 890 (9th Cir. 2000)). A motion brought under Rule 59(e) should be granted only in 25 “highly unusual circumstances.” Kona, 229 F.3d at 890. It may not be used to raise 26 arguments or present evidence for the first time that reasonably could have been raised 27 earlier, id., nor is it the time “to ask the court to rethink what it has already thought 28 through—rightly or wrongly,” United States v. Rezzonico, 32 F. Supp.2d 1112, 1116 (D. 1 Ariz. 1998) (quotation omitted). A district court may grant a Rule 59(e) motion if it “‘is 2 presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an 3 intervening change in the controlling law.’” McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 1255 4 (9th Cir. 1999) (en banc) (quoting 389 Orange St. Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 5 (9th Cir. 1999)). 6 The Court found that Claims 3, 5, 7, and 8 of Styers’s habeas petition were 7 rendered moot by the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Styers v. Ryan, 811 F.3d 292 (9th Cir. 8 2015) (“Styers IV”). Styers now contends that the Ninth Circuit did not consider the 9 Eighth Amendment aspects of his allegation that the Arizona Supreme Court, in its 10 second independent review of his death sentence, State v. Styers, 227 Ariz. 186, 254 P.3d 11 1132 (2011) (“Styers III”), failed to consider all of his mitigation evidence, including 12 “non-PTSD” evidence. (Doc. 34 at 4.) This argument remains unpersuasive. 13 The Ninth Circuit remanded the case and ordered this Court to grant a conditional 14 writ on the grounds that the state courts did not consider and give effect to Styers’s PTSD 15 as mitigating evidence. Styers v. Schriro, 547 F.3d 1026, 1035 (9th Cir. 2008) (“Styers 16 II”). The appellate court did not “express []or imply any opinion as to the appropriate 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 sentence in this case,” explaining that the proper sentence “is a matter for the state courts, so long as the constitutional obligations under Eddings and Clemons are honored.” Id. at 1036. This Court granted the conditional writ. In response, the Arizona Supreme Court conducted a new independent sentencing review and reaffirmed the trial court’s original capital sentence. Styers III, 227 Ariz. 186, 254 P.3d 1132. In Styers IV, the Ninth Circuit upheld the Arizona Supreme Court’s determination that a jury resentencing was not required under Ring and found that the state supreme court corrected its Eddings error by properly considering the mitigating evidence that Styers suffers from PTSD. 811 F.3d at 297–99. Contrary to Styers’s principal argument, the Arizona Supreme Court “consider[ed] whether Styers’s PTSD, in combination with the other mitigating evidence, provides mitigation sufficiently substantial to warrant leniency.” Styers III, 227 Ariz. at 189, 254 P.3d at 1135 (emphasis added). Additionally, in finding that the Arizona Supreme Court had corrected the Eddings error, Styers IV, 811 -2- 1 F.3d at 298–99, the Ninth Circuit necessarily rejected Styers’s Eighth Amendment 2 claims. 3 This Court did not err in finding Claims 3, 5, 7, and 8 without merit. Styers’s 4 Motion to Alter or Amend is denied. 5 2. Certificate of Appealability 6 Styers seeks a certificate of appealability with respect to the Court’s rulings on 7 each of his habeas claims. Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases 8 provides 9 a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant. If a 10 certificate is issued, the court must state the specific issue or issues that satisfy 28 U.S.C. 11 § 2253(c)(2). Under § 2253(c)(2), a certificate of appealability may issue only when the 12 petitioner “has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” This 13 showing can be established by demonstrating that “reasonable jurists could debate 14 whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a 15 different manner” or that the issues were “adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed 16 further.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 17 20 21 22 23 24 25 district judge must either issue or deny For the reasons already discussed, with respect to Claims 3, 5, 7, and 8, no reasonable jurist could disagree that the claims are moot based on the Ninth Circuit’s ruling in Styers IV. This Court previously found that Claims 1, 2, 4, and 6 constituted a second or successive petition. (Doc. 19 at 6–7.) Styers’s counterargument is that a full mitigation investigation would reveal additional evidence to support the claims. The Court has already rejected this argument. (Doc. 32 at 5–7.) An assertion that additional evidence exists does not change the fact that the claims themselves were or could have been raised in Styers’s first petition. Reasonable jurists could not disagree that the claims must be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b). 26 Accordingly, 27 28 the U.S. 880, 893 & n. 4 (1983)). 18 19 that IT IS ORDERED denying Styers’s Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment. (Doc. 34.) -3- 1 2 3 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Styers’s Motion for a Certificate of Appealability (Doc. 35.) Dated this 24th day of October, 2017. 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-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?