Cassise v. Brnovich
Filing
34
ORDER: IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner's Motion for Expeditious Ruling (Doc. 33 ) is denied. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner's Motion for Relief from Judgment or Order (Doc. 32 ) is denied. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is denied as to this Rule 60(b) motion because Petitioner has not demonstrated that reasonable jurists could find the ruling debatable or conclude that the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further. (See Order for full details.) Signed by Judge Michael T Liburdi on 11/18/22. (SST)
1
WO
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9
Louis Joseph Cassise,
No. CV-20-00633-PHX-MTL
Petitioner,
10
11
v.
12
Mark Brnovich, et al.,
13
ORDER
Respondents.
14
15
Before the Court is Petitioner’s Rule 60(b) Motion for Relief from Wrongful
16
Dismissal for Lack of Jurisdiction (Doc. 32) and Motion for Expeditious Ruling (Doc. 33).
17
The Court denies the Motion for Expeditious Ruling as moot. For the following reasons,
18
the Court will deny Petitioner’s Rule 60(b) Motion.
I.
19
20
The Court previously set out the history of Petitioner’s offense, conviction, and
21
post-conviction proceedings in its Order dismissing Petitioner’s Amended Petition. (See
22
Docs. 24, 27, 29.) Following the Court’s denials of Petitioner’s § 2254 petition for habeas
23
corpus relief (Doc. 24), motion for reconsideration (Doc. 27), and motion to be heard (Doc.
24
29), Petitioner filed the instant Rule 60(b) motion. (Doc. 32.) This is Petitioner’s third
25
attempt to have the Court reconsider its previous ruling.
26
///
27
///
28
///
1
II.
2
Rule 60(b) provides:
3
On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its
legal representative from a final judgment, order, or
proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake,
inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly
discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not
have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under
Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or
extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing
party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been
satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based on an earlier
judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it
prospectively is no longer equitable; or (6) any other reason
that justifies relief.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Where a previous ruling precluded a merits determination, a Rule
14
60(b) motion to reconsider that ruling is proper. Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 532 n.4
15
(2005).
16
Petitioner does not identify which subsection of Rule 60(b) he brings his Motion
17
under. The Court finds that the only potentially applicable subsections are (b)(1) and
18
(b)(6). Petitioner asserts that “[the] Court made a clear mistake of law in dismissing [the]
19
case for lack of jurisdiction after it previously issued [leave to amend].” (Doc. 32.) Under
20
(b)(1), the Court finds there was no mistake. The Court dismissed the Amended Petition
21
for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because it was “second or successive.” (Doc. 24 at
22
4-5); see 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). Nowhere in his Motion does Petitioner dispute that
23
his Amended Petition is second or successive. Petitioner’s Motion also fails under (b)(6)
24
because he has failed to establish “extraordinary circumstances.” See Gonzalez, 545 U.S.
25
at 536. This requirement rarely occurs in the habeas context. Id. at 534-35. Here, Petitioner
26
has not asserted any change in law or any other extraordinary circumstance that entitles
27
28
Subsection (b)(2) does not apply here because Petitioner does not advance any newly
discovered evidence; (b)(3) does not apply because Petition does not assert fraud; (b)(4)
does not apply because the judgment is not void; (b)(5) similarly does not apply because
there has been no change in the judgment’s status.
-2-
1
him to relief.
2
Petitioner’s Motion may also be construed as requesting leave to amend his
3
Amended Petition. The Court retains discretion to grant leave to amend when justice so
4
requires. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Futility of an amendment in a habeas case, by itself, can
5
justify denying leave to amend. Hooper v. Shinn, No. 08-99024, 2021 WL 70551 (9th Cir.
6
Jan. 8, 2021), cert. denied, 212 L. Ed. 2d 330, 142 S. Ct. 1376 (2022) (citing Bonin v.
7
Calderon, 59 F.3d 815, 845 (9th Cir. 1995)). Petitioner does not state how he would amend
8
his Petition. As the Court has previously stated, leave to amend the Petition would not
9
correct the critical flaw that the Petition is second and successive which leaves the Court
10
without jurisdiction. (Doc. 24 at 4.) The Court therefore finds that Petitioner is not entitled
11
to relief under Rule 60(b).
12
III.
13
Accordingly,
14
IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for Expeditious Ruling (Doc. 33) is
15
16
17
denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for Relief from Judgment
or Order (Doc. 32) is denied.
18
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is denied as to this
19
Rule 60(b) motion because Petitioner has not demonstrated that reasonable jurists could
20
find the ruling debatable or conclude that the issues presented are adequate to deserve
21
encouragement to proceed further. See Buck v. Davis, ––– U.S. –––, 137 S. Ct. 759, 778,
22
197 L.Ed.2d 1 (2017).
23
Dated this 18th day of November, 2022.
24
25
26
27
28
-3-
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?