Cassise #285716 v. Ryan et al

Filing 50

ORDER denying 46 and 49 petitioner's Motions to Reconsider Dismissal of Habeas Petition; denying 47 petitioner's Motion for Leave to Supplement the Record and denying 48 Motion for Production of Records and Docket. No certificate o f appealability shall issue because the petitioner has not shown that jurists of reason would find it debatable either that the Court abused its discretion in denying the motions for reconsideration or that the underlying § 2254 petition states a valid claim for the denial of a constitutional right. Signed by Senior Judge Paul G Rosenblatt on 11/7/16.(LSP)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9
10

Louis Joseph Cassise,
Petitioner,

11
12
13
14
15

vs.
Charles L. Ryan, et al.,
Respondents.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CV-15-01281-PHX-PGR
(9th Cir. No. 16-16209)
ORDER

16

The Court entered its Order (Doc. 29) and Judgment (Doc. 30) dismissing this

17

§ 2254 action without prejudice on June 28, 2016. The dismissal was primarily

18

based on the Younger abstention doctrine due to the fact that the petitioner’s habeas

19

petition contained only unexhausted claims that are still pending before the Arizona

20

Court of Appeals. The petitioner’s appeal of that dismissal, filed on July 7, 2016, is

21

currently pending before the Ninth Circuit in No. 16-16209.

22

Pending before the Court are the petitioner’s Motions to Reconsider Dismissal

23

of Habeas Petition (Docs. 46 and 49), which are in effect the petitioner’s third and

24

fourth post-judgment motions for reconsideration. Even if the Court were to assume

25

that these motions constitute legitimate Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motions, as opposed to

26

being an improper second or successive habeas petition filed without the prior

1

approval of the Ninth Circuit, nothing in them convinces the Court that it erred in

2

dismissing the habeas petition. The arguments and supplemental documents raised

3

in the motions are matters for the petitioner to bring before the Ninth Circuit in his

4

pending appeal, if it permits him to do so.

5

Therefore,

6
7

IT IS ORDERED that the petitioner’s Motions to Reconsider Dismissal of
Habeas Petition (Docs. 46 and 49) are denied.

8

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petitioner’s Motion for Leave to

9

Supplement the Record (Doc. 47) and Motion for Production of Records and Docket

10

(Doc. 48) are both denied.1

11

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no certificate of appealability shall issue

12

because the petitioner has not shown that jurists of reason would find it debatable

13

either that the Court abused its discretion in denying the motions for reconsideration

14

or that the underlying § 2254 petition states a valid claim for the denial of a

15

constitutional right.

16

DATED this 7th day of November, 2016.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
1

25
26

The Court informs the petitioner that the Ninth Circuit has electronic
access to all documents filed in this action.
-2-