Roane v. Gonzales
832 F. Supp. 2d 61
D.D.C.2011Background
- Paul, a federal death row inmate, seeks reconsideration of denial of his intervention in Roane v. Gonzales under Rule 59(e)/60(b).
- This action was filed in 2005; several plaintiffs intervened in 2006–2007; Paul moved to intervene in 2009 and was denied.
- Paul contends documented mental disability prevented him from asserting his challenge to the execution method and warranted intervention.
- The government and courts previously examined Paul’s competency, with district court and Eighth Circuit finding him competent to participate.
- Evidence offered by Paul includes opinions from 1997, 2004, and 2006–2009 reports/affidavits; the timing and impact of this evidence are central to the reconsideration decision.
- The court noted that the notice of execution date (2010) was potentially newly discovered, but it did not alter the denial of intervention; Paul could pursue relief in other proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether reconsideration is warranted for alleged new mental-incompetence evidence | Paul argues new evidence shows incapacity. | No intervening change or truly new evidence; evidence is previously available. | Denied; no intervening controlling-law change or new evidence warranting relief. |
| Whether equitable tolling for mental incompetence justifies untimely intervention | The December 2010 notice of execution date is newly discovered evidence. | Even if newly discovered, it would not change the denial of intervention. | Denied; notice does not provide grounds to reconsider. |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith-Haynie v. D.C., 155 F.3d 575 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (equitable tolling only for completely noncompos mentis grounds)
- Perry v. U.S. Dep’t of State, 669 F. Supp. 2d 60 (D.D.C. 2009) (high burden for tolling; extraordinary circumstance)
- Davis v. D.C., 413 F. App’x 308 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (manifest injustice standard is high; late action not justified)
- Olson v. Clinton, 630 F. Supp. 2d 61 (D.D.C. 2009) (new evidence not grounds for relief when available earlier)
- Roane v. Gonzales, 269 F.R.D. 1 (D.D.C. 2010) (intervention timeliness framework applied)
- Barnard v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 598 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2009) (newly discovered evidence not necessarily grounds for relief from judgment)
- Firestone v. Firestone, 76 F.3d 1205 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (definition of manifest injustice; high threshold)