Kangas v. Ryan et al
ORDER ADOPTING in whole 33 Report and Recommendation prepared by Judge Boyle in this matter. ORDERED denying 31 Motion for Relief from Judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). FURTHER ORDERED denying a Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal because reasonable jurists would not find the ruling debatable. The matter shall remain closed. Signed by Judge John J Tuchi on 12/12/18. (EJA)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
William Edward Kangas,
No. CV-16-03364-PHX-JJT (JZB)
Charles L Ryan, et al.,
On November 14, 2017, the Court entered an Order (Doc. 26) denying and
dismissing with prejudice the Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28
U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. 25.) The Court entered its rulings after considering an exhaustive
Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 22) submitted by United States Magistrate
Judge John Z. Boyle which thoroughly analyzed each of Petitioner’s asserted grounds for
relief. After the Court entered judgment, Petitioner appealed to the Ninth Circuit, which
denied his request for a certificate of appealability because Petitioner failed to make the
required showing. (Doc. 30.)
Petitioner then filed the instant Motion for Relief from Judgment pursuant to Fed.
R. Civ. P. 60(b). (Doc. 31). Judge Boyle has again submitted a thorough R&R analyzing
the Motion and its basis and recommending the Court deny the Motion. (Doc. 33.)
Petitioner timely filed Objections to the new R&R. (Doc. 36.) On consideration of all the
above filings, the Court will adopt the R&R and deny the Motion for Relief. (Doc. 30.)
Judge Boyle set out the clear operative law of this Circuit holding that where a Rule
60(b) motion presents “an asserted federal basis for relief from a…judgment of
conviction…then it is in substance a new request for relief on the merits and should be
treated as a disguised [successive habeas] motion. United States v. Washington, 653 F.3d
1057, 1063 (9th Cir. 2011)(internal quotes omitted). Upon independent review, the Court
concludes Judge Boyle correctly identified the Rule 60(b) Motion as precisely what is
prohibited by Washington. Petitioner makes no argument for a defect in the earlier habeas
proceeding before the Court; his only argument is a claim of actual innocence not approved
by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, raising no new evidence, and which was raised,
considered and rejected at trial, and by the Arizona Court of Appeals. Rule 60(b) motions
are not permitted to give petitioners second bites at the apple. The Motion must be
dismissed, as Judge Boyle concluded.
IT IS ORDERED adopting in whole the R&R prepared by Judge Boyle in this
matter (Doc. 33).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Motion for Relief from Judgment pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). (Doc. 31).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying a Certificate of Appealability and leave to
proceed in forma pauperis on appeal because reasonable jurists would not find the ruling
debatable. The matter shall remain closed.
Dated this 12th day of December, 2018.
Honorable John J. Tuchi
United States District Judge
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?