Ruiz-Velez v. Tegels

Filing 3

ORDER signed by Judge Rudolph T. Randa on 4/22/2014. Clerk of Court DIRECTED to file petition in this action (ECF No. 1) as a motion for relief pursuant to FRCP 60(b) in 12-C-287; Clerk of Court DIRECTED to close this action for statistical purposes. (cc: all counsel, via US mail to Pablo Ruiz-Velez at Jackson Correctional Institution)(cb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
PABLO RUIZ-VELEZ,
Petitioner,
v.

Case No. 14-C-390

LIZZIE TEGELS,
Warden, Jackson Correctional Institution,
Respondent.

DECISION AND ORDER
On April 4, 2014, pro se Petitioner Pablo Ruiz-Velez (“Ruiz-Velez”) filed a
typewritten document entitled “Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus.” He did not use
this District’s standard form. See Civil L.R. 9(a)(1)(E.D. Wis.). The Clerk of Court
accepted the document for filing as a petition for relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and
opened the above-captioned action.
Review of the document discloses that, despite its title, it is more properly
considered as seeking relief from a prior judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. Some background regarding Ruiz-Velez’s earlier petition for a
writ of habeas corpus, Ruiz-Velez v. Tegels, No. 12-C-287 (E.D. Wis.) (the “287 action”),
challenging his state court conviction provides the basis for the Court’s conclusion.
The presiding judge, United States Magistrate Judge Patricia J. Gorence, issued a
Decision and Order denying the petition in the 287 action on August 15, 2013, with entry
of a final judgment on August 16, 2013. On September 16, 2013, Ruiz-Velez filed a
motion requesting an extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration. By an Order

issued on September 20, 2013, that request was denied; in part, Ruiz was advised that the
one-year time frame for filing a motion for relief from judgment under Rule 60 had not
expired, so he had no need for an extension of time to file such a motion.

The text of

Ruiz-Velez’s April 4, 2014, filing cites Rules 60(b)(1), (2) and (3) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure and sets forth the procedural history of the 287 action, stating that he was
allowed to proceed under Rules 60(b)(1), (2) and (3). Based on the foregoing, this Court
construes Ruiz-Velez’s April 4, 2014, filing as a motion pursuant to Rule 60(b) seeking
relief from the judgment in the 287 action.
Therefore, the Court directs the Clerk of Court to file the document in the 287
action as a motion for relief pursuant to Rule 60(b). Since this action was opened in error
the Court further directs the Clerk of Court to close this action for statistical purposes.
NOW, THEREFORE, BASED ON THE FOREGOING, IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED THAT:
The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED TO FILE ECF No. 1 from this action as a
motion for relief pursuant to Rule 60(b) in the 12-C-287 action; and
The Clerk of Court is further DIRECTED TO CLOSE THIS ACTION for
statistical purposes.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 22nd day of April, 2014.
BY THE COURT:

__________________________
HON. RUDOLPH T. RANDA
U.S. District Judge

-2-