Ratchford v. Norris et al

Filing 29

ORDER denying 28 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Magistrate Judge Beth Deere on 10/7/2015. (jak)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
PINE BLUFF DIVISION
JEFFREY SCOTT RATCHFORD
VS.

PETITIONER

CASE NO.: 5:07CV00216 BD

WENDY KELLEY, Director,
Arkansas Department of Correction1

RESPONDENT
ORDER

Petitioner Jeffrey Scott Ratchford has filed a motion for reconsideration of the
Order denying his Rule 60(b) motion. (Docket entry #28) Mr. Ratchford’s motion (#28)
is DENIED.
As noted in the Order denying relief under Rule 60(b), Mr. Ratchford presents
compelling claims (#27), but Rule 60 is not the appropriate vehicle to raise those claims.
Mr. Ratchford did not file his newly discovered evidence claim within one year, as
required. See Gonzalez v. Crosby, 125 S.Ct. 2641, 2649, 545 U.S. 524, 535 (2005);
FED.R.CIV.P. 60(b)(2); FED.R.CIV.P. 60(c)(1). He filed his “catch-all” claims eight years
after judgment, which is not within a “reasonable time.” FED.R.CIV.P. 60(b)(6) and
(c)(1).
Mr. Ratchford argues that his claims should not be considered a second or
successive petition. (#28) If that is the case, 28 U.S.C. § 2254 provides an avenue for

1

Mr. Ratchford named Larry Norris as Respondent. Under Rule 2 of the Rules
Governing § 2254 Cases in United States District Courts, the proper Respondent is the
state officer who has custody of Mr. Ratchford. That officer is now Wendy Kelley,
Director of the Arkansas Department of Correction. Accordingly, the Clerk is instructed
to substitute Director Kelley as the Respondent.

presenting newly discovered evidence and claims based on a new rule of constitutional
law. Mr. Ratchford may also bring a successive claim as long as he obtains prior
authorization. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1)-(3)(A). If Mr. Ratchford files another petition, he
should be aware of the limitations period in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d).
DATED this 7th day of October, 2015.

____________________________________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2