Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01119/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01119-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Danny El Rybolt,

 Petitioner,

vs.

Charles L. Ryan,

 Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-11-01119-PHX-PGR 

 ORDER

 

 

In an Order (Doc. 51) entered on March 4, 2013, the Court dismissed the

petitioner’s § 2254 petition with prejudice on the ground that it was time-barred

due to being filed more than ten years after the expiration of the AEDPA’s oneyear statute of limitations. In the same order, the Court denied a number of the

petitioner’s pending motions, including his Motion to Reverse and Vacate as

Judgment is Void-Rule 6(c)(4) (Doc. 31), filed June 6, 2012. Pending before the

Court is the petitioner’s Motion to Correct Errors in Document: 51 Court Order

(Doc. 53), filed March 7, 2013, which the Court construes as a request that the

Court reconsider the denial of the Motion to Reverse and Vacate as Judgment is

Void-Rule 6(c)(4) (Doc. 31). The petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal (Doc. 54)

from the Court’s judgment of dismissal on April 2, 2013.

Case 2:11-cv-01119-PGR Document 60 Filed 05/07/13 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

 Since there is no Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(c)(4), the Court

assumed that the “Rule 60(c)(4)” cited by the petitioner was a misguided

reference to Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 60(c)(4), which is the state

counterpart to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(4). The state procedural rule has no

applicability in this federal habeas action. 

- 2 -

Having reviewed the reconsideration motion, the Court finds that it should

be denied. The Court acknowledges that the petitioner filed a Correction of

Cover Page (part of Doc. 33) on June 14, 2012, in which he stated that the

motion he wants reconsidered should have been denominated as a Rule 60(c)(4)

motion, and the Court understood at the time it entered its order and judgment of

dismissal that the petitioner was arguing that his state court judgment should be

vacated as being void, and presumed that he was referring to Fed.R.Civ.P.

60(b)(4).1

 The Court denied the motion to vacate, using the title of the motion as

it was originally filed, because such a motion was procedurally improper at the

time it was filed because no judgment had yet been entered on the petitioner’s

federal habeas petition. Since a Rule 60 motion to vacate cannot be substituted

for a federal habeas action, it cannot be properly filed during the pendency of the

federal habeas action. Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that the petitioner’s Motion to Correct Errors in Document

Number: 51 Court Order (Doc. 53) is denied.

DATED this 6th day of May, 2013.

Case 2:11-cv-01119-PGR Document 60 Filed 05/07/13 Page 2 of 2