Anaya v. Hatch et al

Filing 43

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING 41 MOTION for New Trial; and DENYING 38 MOTION for Order. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Petitioner Arturo Anaya's "Motion to U.S. District Judge on Prima Facie Evidence" [Doc. 38 ] is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner's Motion for New Trial [Doc. 41 ] is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. (gr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
ARTURO ANAYA,
Petitioner,
v.

No. 16-cv-0331 MV/SMV

TIMOTHY HATCH and ATTORNEY GENERAL
OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO,
Respondents.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Petitioner Arturo Anaya’s “Motion to
U.S. District Judge on Prima Facie Evidence” [Doc. 38], filed on July 31, 2018. Respondents
filed a response on August 1, 2018.

[Doc. 39].

Petitioner replied on August 14, 2018.

[Doc. 40]. Petitioner also filed a Motion for New Trial on August 17, 2018. [Doc. 41]. The
motions are without merit and will be denied.
Background
Petitioner, proceeding pro se, filed a petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on April 22,
2016. [Doc. 1]. The magistrate judge found that the petition contained both exhausted and
unexhausted claims. [Doc. 28] at 7–8. He gave Petitioner an opportunity either to withdraw the
unexhausted claims or dismiss the entire action without prejudice (in order to allow Petitioner to
take his unexhausted claims to state court). Id. at 8–9. Petitioner declined to withdraw his
unexhausted claims, [Doc. 29] at 3, and on recommendation by the magistrate judge, the
previous presiding judge dismissed the petition without prejudice, [Doc. 30] at 12.
judgment was entered on November 6, 2017. [Doc. 32].

Final

Anaya filed his first post-judgment motion on November 16, 2017, asserting that his
state-court conviction should be overturned because he acted in self-defense. [Doc. 33]. The
Court denied the motion on February 23, 2018, because it failed to meet the Rule 59(e) standard
for relief from judgment, and because it failed to address the reason his petition was denied in the
first place, which was lack of exhaustion. [Doc. 36] at 4–6.
Anaya filed these second and third post-judgment motions on July 31, 2018, and
August 17, 2018. [Docs. 38, 41]. He continues to argue that his state conviction should be
overturned because he acted in self-defense. Id. The motions lack any sound basis in the
controlling facts or law of the case. His case was properly dismissed without prejudice for
failure to exhaust.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Petitioner
Arturo Anaya’s “Motion to U.S. District Judge on Prima Facie Evidence” [Doc. 38] is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for New Trial [Doc. 41] is
DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

_________________________________
MARTHA VÁZQUEZ
United States District Judge

2