Mitchell v. United States of America

Filing 24

ORDER denying 22 motion to deem Rule 60(b) motion as timely filed. Petitioner shall file no further motions in this action. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 7/26/2013.(TCA)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

No. CV-11-00580-PHX-DGC
CR-05-0886-PHX-DGC

Devon Mitchell,
Petitioner,

10

ORDER

11

v.

12

United States of America,

13

Respondent.

14
15

Petitioner Devon Mitchell has filed a motion asking the Court to consider his

16

Rule 60(b) motion as timely filed. Doc. 22. After examining the Court’s dockets, the

17

Court finds that Petitioner filed his Rule 60(b) motion in his criminal case (CR-05-0886,

18

Doc. 335), not in this habeas case. Even if the Court were to deem the motion as timely

19

filed, however, the Court would deny it.

20

Petitioner’s Rule 60(b) motion restates argument B from his habeas petition – that

21

the government failed to present sufficient evidence at trial to show that the banks he

22

robbed were federally insured. See Doc. 2 at 8-9. Judge Aspey found that this argument

23

had been procedurally defaulted because it was not raised on appeal. Doc. 11. In his

24

objection, Petitioner stated that he “reincorporates” argument B and “totally relies on the

25

arguments and legal authority” stated in his petition. Doc. 16 at 2. This was not an

26

effective objection to Judge Aspey’s order because it did not address any defect in that

27

order. Indeed, it did not even address the reason for Judge Aspey’s rejection of argument

28

B – that it was barred by Petitioner’s failure to raise it on appeal.

1

An objection that is general or imprecise is not an effective objection to a report

2

and recommendation. Because Petitioner did not make specific objections to Judge

3

Aspey’s findings and recommendations on argument B as required by 28 U.S.C.

4

§ 636(b)(1), his objection was ineffective.

5

requirement of Rule 72(b) that a district judge make a de novo determination of any

6

portion of the magistrate judge’s disposition to which “specific written objections” have

7

been made. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); see Sullivan v. Schriro, No. CV–0404–1517,

8

2006 WL 1516005 (D. Ariz. May 30, 2006). The Court had no obligation to review

9

Petitioner’s general objection to Judge Aspey’s recommendation. See Thomas v. Arn,

10

474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (no review at all is required for “any issue that is not the

11

subject of an objection.”); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir.

12

2003) (same).

13
14
15
16

This conclusion comports with the

Moreover, Judge Aspey correctly concluded that argument B was procedurally
defaulted. See Doc. 11.
Because Petitioner’s incorrectly-filed Rule 60(b) motion would fail on its merits in
any event, the Court will deny as moot his motion to deem it timely filed in this case.

17

IT IS ORDERED:

18

1.

19
20
21

Petitioner Devon Mitchell’s motion to deem Rule 60(b) motion as timely

filed (Doc. 22) is denied.
2.

Petitioner shall file no further motions in this action.
Dated this 26th day of July, 2013.

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-2-