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)

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-