Stewart v. Ryan et al

Filing 49

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)

Download PDF
1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Thomas Stewart, Jr., Petitioner, 10 11 ORDER v. 12 No. CV-12-01688-PHX-JAT Charles L Ryan, et al., 13 Respondents. 14 15 In August 2012, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus challenging 16 his 2004 state court conviction. In April 2014, this Court denied the Petition and entered 17 judgment accordingly. (Docs. 40 and 41). 18 Court of Appeals denied a certificate of appealability in August 2014. Petitioner appealed and the Ninth Circuit 19 In March 2017, Petitioner filed two motions and a supplement. (Docs. 46, 47, and 20 48). One motion seeks relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60, claiming fraud 21 on the court. This motion is 32 pages (157 with attachments) and is accompanied by a 48 22 page supplement. In summary, it appears to argue that the state court record as filed by 23 Respondents is either incomplete or inaccurate. 24 something he filed on February 25, 2011 was treated incorrectly by the state court clerk. 25 (Doc. 47 at 9). The Court believes the document to which Petitioner refers is found in 26 this Court’s record at Doc. 16-4 at 2. Petitioner argues this issue is “newly discovered.” 27 (Doc. 47 at 2). 28 Petitioner appears to argue that First, because Respondent filed this exhibit on December 28, 2012, the Court 1 rejects Petitioner’s argument that it is “newly discovered.” 2 document was in this Court’s record at the time this Court rendered its April 2014 3 decision, Respondents did not commit fraud on the Court. Finally, Petitioner seems to 4 argue that the Arizona superior court somehow harmed him. (Doc. 47 at 10). Any claim 5 Petitioner may have against the superior court is not properly before this Court as part of 6 a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Therefore, Petitioner’s motion to reopen (Doc. 47) 7 will be denied. Second, because this 8 Petitioner also seeks discovery from Respondents. (Doc. 46). Because this case is 9 closed, and will not be reopened, the Court will not order any discovery between the 10 parties. 11 Based on the foregoing, 12 IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Reopen (Doc. 47) is denied.1 13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Order for Prison Logs of In- 14 15 Coming Mail (Doc. 46) is denied. Dated this 23rd day of May, 2017. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 26 27 28 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.) -2-

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?