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)

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-