Pursley v. Estep

Filing 116

ORDER. ORDERED THAT Applicant Carl Pursley Jr.'s Motion for Relief from Final Judgment Pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6) 111 and Motion for Order to Expand Record 112 are DENIED by Chief Judge Wiley Y. Daniel on 11/08/12.(jjhsl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Chief Judge Wiley Y. Daniel
Civil Action No. 05-cv-01767-WYD-MEH
CARL WILLIAM PURSLEY, JR.,
Applicant,
v.
AL ESTEP, Warden of LCF, and
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF COLORADO,
Respondents.

ORDER

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Plaintiff Carl Pursley Jr.’s (“Pursley”)
Motion for Relief from Final Judgment Pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6) [DE-111] and Motion for
Order to Expand Record [DE-112]. By these motions, Pursley seeks relief from the final
judgment entered in this case on November 1, 2006 [DE-35]. Pursley suggests that he is
entitled to relief under Rule 60(b)(6) due to a recent Supreme Court decision, Martinez v.
Ryan, 132 S.Ct. 1309 (2012), that changed the relevant case law. Having reviewed
Pursley’s papers and the applicable law, I must deny both of his motions.
Relief should not be granted pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6) unless the movant shows
exceptional or extraordinary circumstances. Johnston v. Cigna Corp., 14 F.3d 486, 497
(10th Cir. 1993). The rule in the Tenth circuit is that not even a change in the law
constitutes an extraordinary circumstance which would allow relief under Rule 60(b)(6).

1

Pierce v. Cook & Co., 518 F.2d 720, 722 (10th Cir. 1975). I do not find the minor change
in law reflected in Martinez to provide the extraordinary circumstances warranting relief
under Rule 60(b)(6). See also Adams v. Thaler, 679 F.3d 312, 320 (5th Cir. 2012)(The
“decision in Martinez ... does not constitute an ‘extraordinary circumstance’ under Supreme
Court and our precedent to warrant Rule 60(b)(6) relief.”). Accordingly, it is
ORDERED THAT Applicant Carl Pursley Jr.’s Motion for Relief from Final Judgment
Pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6) [DE-111] and Motion for Order to Expand Record [DE-112] are
DENIED.
Dated: November 8, 2012
BY THE COURT:

s/ Wiley Y. Daniel
Wiley Y. Daniel
Chief United States District Judge

2