Adams v. Bradshaw
Filing
132
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER denying Motion for reconsideration. Related Doc # 129 ; denying Motion to stay (Related Doc # 130 ). Judge David A. Katz on 8/29/13.(G,C)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
STANLEY T. ADAMS,
Petitioner,
vs.
NORMAN ROBINSON, Warden,
Respondent.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
CASE NO. 1:05 CV 1886
JUDGE DAVID A. KATZ
MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER
Before the Court is Petitioner Stanley Adams’ (“Petitioner” or “Adams”) Motion
for Reconsideration of Court’s Memorandum of Opinion and Order of August 2, 2013.
(ECF No. 129.) Adams asks the Court to reconsider its denial of his requests for judicial
notice of a case currently pending in the District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
and for further discovery relating to his lethal injection claim. (ECF No. 109.) Also before
the Court is Adams’ Motion to Stay and Abey. (ECF No. 130.) Through that motion,
Adams requests an order staying the transfer of this matter to the Sixth Circuit Court of
Appeals until this Court resolves Jones v. Bradshaw, Case No. 07-3766. Respondent
opposes both motions. (ECF No. 131.) For the following reasons, Adams’ motions are
denied.
I.
Relevant Background
On February 13, 2009, the Sixth Circuit granted Adams' motion to stay the appeal
of this Court’s denial of his Petition for Habeas Corpus and remanded the case to this Court
“for factual development on lethal injection.” (ECF No. 66.) On March 27, 2012, after
conferring with counsel for both parties, the Court ordered Respondent to produce to
Adams’ habeas counsel all discovery materials it had produced, and copies of transcripts of
all hearings conducted, in the § 1983 action in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio, Cooey v. Strickland, Case No. 04 CV 1156 (now entitled In Re:
Ohio Execution Protocol Litigation, Case No. 2:11 CV 1016 (“In re OEPL”)), in which
Adams and many other death row inmates are challenging Ohio’s lethal injection protocol.
The Court also ordered the parties to file necessary pleadings with the Court within one
hundred and eighty days after discovery was complete. (ECF No. 94.) After having
requested and received numerous extensions of time, the parties completed the ordered
discovery and submitted briefs to the Court on April 12, 2013.
Adams filed a “Pleading Submitted pursuant to the Court’s order of March 27,
2012.” (ECF No. 109.) In it, he requested that the Court take judicial notice of In re
OEPL. (Id. at 15-18.) Adams also sought to continue discovery, so that he could
investigate the psychological impact of Ohio’s deviations from, and changes to, its lethal
injection protocol and Ohio’s botched executions, and whether “not being sure how his
death sentence will be carried out” constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. (Id. at 2.)
Respondent objected that any further factual development was unnecessary to adjudicate
Adams’ lethal injection claim. (ECF No. 126.) Respondent also moved for summary
2
judgment dismissing Adams’ lethal injection claims. (ECF No. 110.)
On August 2, 2013, this Court denied Adams’ requests and Respondent’s motion
for summary judgment. (ECF No. 109.) Now Adams has filed motions asking the Court to
reconsider its ruling on his requests and to stay the transfer of this matter to the Sixth
Circuit until the petitioner in Jones v. Bradshaw completes discovery. (ECF No. 129.)
Respondent counters that Adams is simply “rehash[ing] the same arguments” in favor of
continued discovery, and that he is using the Jones case to “bog down” his own habeas
case. (ECF No. 131, 1, 4.)
II.
Analysis
A motion under Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows district
courts to alter, amend, or vacate a prior judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e); Huff v.
Metropolitan Life Insur. Co., 675 F.2d 119, 122 (6th Cir. 1982). The purpose of Rule 59(e)
is "to allow the district court to correct its own errors, sparing the parties and appellate
courts the burden of unnecessary appellate proceedings." Howard v. United States, 533
F.3d 472, 475 (6th Cir. 2008) (quoting York v. Tate, 858 F.2d 343. 348 (6th Cir. 1988))
(internal quotation marks omitted). It permits courts to amend judgments if there is a clear
error of law, newly discovered evidence, an intervening change in controlling law, or to
prevent manifest injustice. Gencorp, Inc. v. American Internat'l Underwriters, 178 F.3d
804, 834 (6th Cir. 1999).
The grant or denial of a Rule 59(e) motion is within the informed discretion of the
district court. Huff, 675 F.2d at 122. However, relief under Rule 59(e) “is an extraordinary
remedy and should be granted sparingly because of the interests in finality and
3
conservation of scarce judicial resources.” U.S. ex rel. Am. Textile Mfrs. Inst., Inc. v. The
Limited, Inc., 179 F.R.D. 541, 547 (S.D. Ohio 1998) (Holschuh, J.) (citations omitted).
Indeed, “Rule 59(e) allows for reconsideration; it does not permit parties to effectively
‘re-argue a case.’” Howard, 533 F.3d at 475 (quoting Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa
Indians v. Engler, 146 F.3d 367, 374 (6th Cir. 1988)).
Here, Adams is attempting to relitigate the issues this Court already decided in its
August 2, 2013 Memorandum of Opinion and Order. He does not present a clear error of
law, newly discovered evidence, an intervening change in controlling law, or a compelling
argument that the denial of the additional discovery he seeks will cause manifest injustice.
In addition, Adams’ request to stay this matter until the petitioner in Jones has
completed discovery would only further delay these habeas proceedings, which the Sixth
Circuit remanded to this Court for “limited” discovery in February of 2009, four and a half
years ago. Adams does not point to any tangible benefit that would justify extending the
duration of his appeal any longer.
III.
Conclusion
Accordingly, Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 129) and Motion to
Stay and Abey (ECF No. 130) are denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
S/ David A. Katz
DAVID A. KATZ
U. S. DISTRICT JUDGE
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?