Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00344/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00344-0/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

27

28 TERMPSREF - 1 -

WO RP

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Timothy Paul Olmos, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-11-344-PHX-GMS (MEA)

ORDER

Pending before this Court are Petitioner’s “Motion To Reconsider Denial Of

Petitioner’s Motion To Stay And Abey Proceedings” (Doc. 7) and “Motion To Rule On Filed

Pleadings And To Correct Court Record” (Doc. 11).

I. Procedural Background

On February 22, 2011, Petitioner Timothy Paul Olmos, who is confined in the Arizona

State Prison Complex-Florence, filed a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1), an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2), and

a “Motion To Stay And Abey 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Proceedings” (Doc. 3).

By Order filed April 20, 2011 (Doc. 5), the Court granted Petitioner’s Application to

Proceed In Forma Pauperis, denied Petitioner’s “Motion To Stay And Abey 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254 Proceedings,” dismissed the Petition and this action without prejudice, and declined

to issue a certificate of appealability in the event Petitioner filed an appeal. Judgment was

Case 2:11-cv-00344-GMS Document 13 Filed 08/10/11 Page 1 of 5
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

27

28 TERMPSREF - 2 -

entered on April 20, 2011 (Doc. 6). 

On May 2, 2011, Petitioner filed his “Motion To Reconsider Denial Of Petitioner’s

Motion To Stay And Abey Proceedings” (Doc. 7) and a pleading entitled “Motion For

Certificate Of Appealability In District Court” (Doc. 8), which the Clerk of Court treated as

a Notice of Appeal. On May 11, 2011, Petitioner filed his “Motion To Rule On Filed

Pleadings And To Correct Court Record” (Doc. 11). 

II. Motion to Reconsider

In his “Motion To Reconsider Denial Of Petitioner’s Motion To Stay And Abey

Proceedings” (Doc. 7), Petitioner asks the Court to reconsider its decision by reinstating his

Petition (Doc. 1) and granting his “Motion To Stay And Abey 28 U.S.C. § 2254

Proceedings” (Doc. 3). In the present case, where Petitioner submitted his Motion to

Reconsider after entry of judgment, the only appropriate procedural devices are: (1) a motion

to alter or amend judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; or (2) a

motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Because Petitioner’s Motion to Reconsider calls into question the correctness of the

underlying judgment, it is in reality a Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend judgment pursuant

to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Court will construe it as such.

Fischer v. United States Department of Justice, 759 F.2d 461, 464 (5th Cir. 1985). See also

Munden v. Ultra Alaska Associates, 849 F.2d 383, 387 (9th Cir. 1988); Sea Ranch

Association v. California Coastal Zone Conservation Comm’n, 537 F.2d 1058, 1061 (9th Cir.

1978); 9 J. Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 204.12[1] (1985) (“Any motion that draws

into question the correctness of the judgment is functionally a motion under Civil Rule 59(e),

whatever its label.”).

In his Motion to Reconsider, Petitioner argues in part that the Court should not have

dismissed the Petition and denied his Motion to Stay and Abey because he “is reasonably

confused about whether or not his successive Rule 32 petitions will ultimately by ruled

timely filed or not.” Although Petitioner did not make this assertion in his Motion to Stay

Case 2:11-cv-00344-GMS Document 13 Filed 08/10/11 Page 2 of 5
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

27

28 TERMPSREF - 3 -

and Abey, he did allege that he was filing a “‘protective’ petition” as provided for in Pace

v. DiGuglielmo, 125 S. Ct. 1807 (2005). 

In the interests of justice, and because Petitioner’s claims may now be time barred,

the Court will grant in part Petitioner’s Motion to Reconsider by vacating its Order (Doc. 5)

to the extent that it denied Petitioner’s “Motion To Stay And Abey 28 U.S.C. § 2254

Proceedings” (Doc. 3), dismissed the Petition (Doc. 1) and this action without prejudice, and

declined to issue a certificate of appealability in the event Petitioner filed an appeal. The

Court will also vacate the Judgment entered on April 20, 2011 (Doc. 6 ), direct the Clerk of

Court to serve the Petition and Motion to Stay and Abey on the Respondents, direct the

Respondents not to answer the Petition at this time, and require the Respondents to respond

to Petitioner’s Motion to Stay and Abey. The Motion to Reconsider will be denied as to all

other relief requested.

III. Motion to Rule

In his “Motion To Rule On Filed Pleadings And To Correct Court Record” (Doc. 11),

Petitioner moves this Court to rule on his “Motion To Reconsider Denial Of Petitioner’s

Motion To Stay And Abey Proceedings” (Doc. 7) and “Motion For Certificate Of

Appealability In District Court” (Doc. 8), and to order the Clerk of Court to retract its

transmittal of the record to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Plaintiff’s Motion to Rule

will be granted in part to the extent that this Order rules on Petitioner’s Motion to Reconsider

and denied in part as to all other relief requested.

IV. Warnings

A. Address Changes

Petitioner must file and serve a notice of a change of address in accordance with Rule

83.3(d) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure. Petitioner must not include a motion for other

relief with a notice of change of address. Failure to comply may result in dismissal of this

action.

Case 2:11-cv-00344-GMS Document 13 Filed 08/10/11 Page 3 of 5
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

27

28 TERMPSREF - 4 -

B. Copies

Petitioner must serve Respondents, or counsel if an appearance has been entered, a

copy of every document that he files. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(a). Each filing must include a

certificate stating that a copy of the filing was served. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(d). Also, Petitioner

must submit an additional copy of every filing for use by the Court. LRCiv 5.4. Failure to

comply may result in the filing being stricken without further notice to Petitioner.

C. Possible Dismissal

If Petitioner fails to timely comply with every provision of this Order, including these

warnings, the Court may dismiss this action without further notice. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet,

963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (a district court may dismiss an action for failure to

comply with any order of the Court).

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) Petitioner’s “Motion To Reconsider Denial Of Petitioner’s Motion To Stay

And Abey Proceedings” (Doc. 7), which the Court construes as a motion to alter or amend

judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, is granted in part

to the extent that the Court’s Order (Doc. 5) is vacated in so far as it denied Petitioner’s

“Motion To Stay And Abey 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Proceedings” (Doc. 3), dismissed the Petition

(Doc. 1) and this action without prejudice, and declined to issue a certificate of appealability

in the event Petitioner filed an appeal. The Judgment entered on April 20, 2011 (Doc. 6 ) is

also vacated. Petitioner’s “Motion To Reconsider Denial Of Petitioner’s Motion To Stay

And Abey Proceedings” (Doc. 7) is denied in part as to all other relief requested. 

(2) Petitioner’s “Motion To Rule On Filed Pleadings And To Correct Court

Record” (Doc. 11) is granted in part to the extent that this Order rules on Petitioner’s

“Motion To Reconsider Denial Of Petitioner’s Motion To Stay And Abey Proceedings”

(Doc. 7) and denied in part as to all other relief requested.

(3) The Clerk of Court must serve a copy of the Petition (Doc. 1), “Motion To

Stay And Abey 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Proceedings” (Doc. 3), and this Order on the Respondent

Case 2:11-cv-00344-GMS Document 13 Filed 08/10/11 Page 4 of 5
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

27

28 TERMPSREF - 5 -

and the Attorney General of the State of Arizona by certified mail pursuant to Rule 4, Rules

Governing Section 2254 Cases. 

(4) Respondents must file a response to the “Motion To Stay And Abey 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254 Proceedings” (Doc. 3) within 40 days of the date of service.

(5) Petitioner may file a reply to the response to the “Motion To Stay And Abey

28 U.S.C. § 2254 Proceedings” (Doc. 3) within 30 days from the date of service of the

response.

(6) Respondents must not answer the Petition until directed to do so by the Court.

(7) This matter, including the Petition (Doc. 1) and the “Motion To Stay And Abey

28 U.S.C. § 2254 Proceedings” (Doc. 3), is referred to Magistrate Judge Mark E. Aspey

pursuant to Rules 72.1 and 72.2 of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure for further proceedings

and a report and recommendation.

DATED this 10th day of August, 2011.

Case 2:11-cv-00344-GMS Document 13 Filed 08/10/11 Page 5 of 5