Parker #270777 v. Arizona, State of

Filing 46

ORDER - IT IS ORDERED that the petitioner's Motion: Reconsideration (Doc. 41 ) is denied. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall provide the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals with a copy of this Order to be filed in the petitioner's appeal, case number 17-17040. (See document for further details). Signed by Senior Judge Paul G Rosenblatt on 11/1/17.(SLQ)

Download PDF
1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 10 Chastabear William Parker, Petitioner, 11 12 13 vs. Charles L. Ryan, et al., Respondents. 14 15 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. CV-16-02404-PHX-PGR ORDER (9th Cir. No. 17-17040) 16 On September 28, 2017, the Court entered its Order (Doc. 39) and Judgment 17 (Doc. 40) dismissing the petitioner’s amended § 2254 habeas petition with prejudice 18 on the ground that it was untimely filed under the AEDPA. Pending before the Court 19 is the petitioner’s Motion: Reconsideration (Doc. 41), filed October 10, 2017, which 20 the Court construes as being filed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e). 21 considered the motion in light of the applicable record, the Court finds that it should 22 be denied. Having 23 A Rule 59(e) motion is an “extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly[.]” 24 Wood v. Ryan, 759 F.3d 1117, 1121 (9th Cir.2014). The Court may consider the 25 merits of a Rule 59(e) motion filed in a habeas action only to the extent that it asks 26 the Court to correct manifest errors of law or facts underlying its judgment of 1 dismissal. Rishor v. Ferguson, 822 F.3d 482, 492 (9th Cir.2016). The Court enjoys 2 “considerable discretion” in resolving such a motion. Id. 3 The Court dismissed the petitioner’s habeas action, deemed to have been 4 filed on July 7, 2016, as time-barred because the AEDPA’s one-year statute of 5 limitations expired on February 7, 2014, and petitioner had not established that the 6 limitations period should be extended pursuant to either statutory or equitable tolling. 7 Nothing in the petitioner’s Rule 59(e) motion convinces the Court that it clearly erred 8 in dismissing this action on that ground because the petitioner’s motion is not 9 directed at the timeliness of this action, but rather on the issue of whether the 10 petitioner showed sufficient cause and prejudice to excuse the fact that he had 11 procedurally defaulted on all of his claims, which is an issue the Court did not reach, 12 and still does not reach, in light of the untimeliness of the action. Therefore, 13 14 IT IS ORDERED that the petitioner’s Motion: Reconsideration (Doc. 41) is denied. 15 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall provide the Ninth 16 Circuit Court of Appeals with a copy of this Order to be filed in the petitioner’s 17 appeal, case number 17-17040. 18 DATED this 1st day of November, 2017. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 -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?