Stewart v. Ryan et al
ORDER: IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Reopen (Doc. 47 ) is denied. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Order for Prison Logs of In-Coming Mail (Doc. 46 ) is denied [see attached Order for details]. Signed by Senior Judge James A Teilborg on 5/23/17.(MAW)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Thomas Stewart, Jr.,
Charles L Ryan, et al.,
In August 2012, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus challenging
his 2004 state court conviction. In April 2014, this Court denied the Petition and entered
judgment accordingly. (Docs. 40 and 41).
Court of Appeals denied a certificate of appealability in August 2014.
Petitioner appealed and the Ninth Circuit
In March 2017, Petitioner filed two motions and a supplement. (Docs. 46, 47, and
48). One motion seeks relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60, claiming fraud
on the court. This motion is 32 pages (157 with attachments) and is accompanied by a 48
page supplement. In summary, it appears to argue that the state court record as filed by
Respondents is either incomplete or inaccurate.
something he filed on February 25, 2011 was treated incorrectly by the state court clerk.
(Doc. 47 at 9). The Court believes the document to which Petitioner refers is found in
this Court’s record at Doc. 16-4 at 2. Petitioner argues this issue is “newly discovered.”
(Doc. 47 at 2).
Petitioner appears to argue that
First, because Respondent filed this exhibit on December 28, 2012, the Court
rejects Petitioner’s argument that it is “newly discovered.”
document was in this Court’s record at the time this Court rendered its April 2014
decision, Respondents did not commit fraud on the Court. Finally, Petitioner seems to
argue that the Arizona superior court somehow harmed him. (Doc. 47 at 10). Any claim
Petitioner may have against the superior court is not properly before this Court as part of
a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Therefore, Petitioner’s motion to reopen (Doc. 47)
will be denied.
Second, because this
Petitioner also seeks discovery from Respondents. (Doc. 46). Because this case is
closed, and will not be reopened, the Court will not order any discovery between the
Based on the foregoing,
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Reopen (Doc. 47) is denied.1
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Order for Prison Logs of In-
Coming Mail (Doc. 46) is denied.
Dated this 23rd day of May, 2017.
To the extent a ruling on a certificate of appealability (COA) is required on the
motion to reopen, a COA is denied. See Lynch v. Blodgett, 999 F.2d 401, 402-03 (9th
Cir. 1993) (holding that a Certificate of Probable Cause, the predecessor to the COA
under the prior version of § 2253, was required to appeal the denial of a Rule 60(b)
motion in a § 2254 habeas corpus proceeding.)
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?