Qualls v. Ryan et al

Filing 160

ORDER granting 157 Petitioner's Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages and denying 159 Motion for Relief from Judgment. IT IS FINALLY ORDERED a certificate of appealability as to the September 7, 2017 motion for relief from judgment is denied. Signed by Senior Judge James A Teilborg on 9/18/17.(LSP)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

William Kenneth Qualls,
Petitioner,

10
11

ORDER

v.

12

No. CV 13-01288-PHX-JAT

Charles L. Ryan, et al.,

13

Respondents.

14
15
16

I.

History

17

On May 8, 2015, this Court denied the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in this

18

case. Petitioner appealed. The Court of Appeals denied a certificate of appealability on

19

September 25, 2015. While that appeal was pending, Petitioner filed a motion to reopen

20

his case (Doc. 145), which this Court denied (Doc. 146).

21

On August 17, 2016, Petitioner filed a motion to exceed page limit and lodged a

22

motion for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6).

23

Court allowed Petitioner to exceed the page limit, but denied the Rule 60 motion on the

24

merits (Doc. 150).1 Therafter, this Court denied a certificate of appealability as to this

25

motion. (Doc. 152). The Court of Appeals also denied a certificate of appealability as to

26

this motion (Doc. 156).

This

27
28

1

In this Rule 60 motion, Petitioner alleged 10 errors in this Court’s original
decision. Doc. 149 at 8-9.

1

II.

Current motion

2

On September 7, 2017, Petitioner filed another motion to exceed page limit and

3

lodged another motion for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

4

60(b)(6). This lodged Rule 60 motion challenges this Court’s denial of a certificate of

5

appealability. (Doc. 158 at 8).

6

As recounted above, the Court of Appeals has already denied a certificate of

7

appealability. That decision is subject to the Rule of Mandate, and this Court cannot

8

revisit it. See Gonzalez v. Arizona, 677 F.3d 383, 390 (9th Cir. 2012). Thus, this new

9

Rule 60 motion will be for this reason.

10

III.

Conclusion

11

Accordingly,

12

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion to exceed pages (Doc. 157) is granted

13

to the extent that the Clerk of the Court shall deem filed the Motion currently lodged at

14
15
16
17
18
19
20

Doc. 158.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Relief from Judgment (Doc.
158) is denied.
IT IS FINALLY ORDERED a certificate of appealability as to the September 7,
2017 motion for relief from judgment is denied. See generally Lynch v. Blodgett, 999
F.2d 401 (9th Cir. 1993) (requiring a certificate of appealability on a Rule 60 motion).
Dated this 18th day of September, 2017.

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-2-