Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-5_07-cv-00216/USCOURTS-ared-5_07-cv-00216-0/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)

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

PINE BLUFF DIVISION

JEFFREY SCOTT RATCHFORD PETITIONER

VS. CASE NO.: 5:07CV00216 BD

WENDY KELLEY, Director, 

Arkansas Department of Correction1 RESPONDENT

ORDER

Petitioner Jeffrey Scott Ratchford has filed a motion for reconsideration of the

Order denying his Rule 60(b) motion. (Docket entry #28) Mr. Ratchford’s motion (#28)

is DENIED.

As noted in the Order denying relief under Rule 60(b), Mr. Ratchford presents

compelling claims (#27), but Rule 60 is not the appropriate vehicle to raise those claims. 

Mr. Ratchford did not file his newly discovered evidence claim within one year, as

required. See Gonzalez v. Crosby, 125 S.Ct. 2641, 2649, 545 U.S. 524, 535 (2005);

FED.R.CIV.P. 60(b)(2); FED.R.CIV.P. 60(c)(1). He filed his “catch-all” claims eight years

after judgment, which is not within a “reasonable time.” FED.R.CIV.P. 60(b)(6) and

(c)(1). 

Mr. Ratchford argues that his claims should not be considered a second or

successive petition. (#28) If that is the case, 28 U.S.C. § 2254 provides an avenue for

1 Mr. Ratchford named Larry Norris as Respondent. Under Rule 2 of the Rules

Governing § 2254 Cases in United States District Courts, the proper Respondent is the

state officer who has custody of Mr. Ratchford. That officer is now Wendy Kelley,

Director of the Arkansas Department of Correction. Accordingly, the Clerk is instructed

to substitute Director Kelley as the Respondent.

Case 5:07-cv-00216-BD Document 29 Filed 10/07/15 Page 1 of 2
presenting newly discovered evidence and claims based on a new rule of constitutional

law. Mr. Ratchford may also bring a successive claim as long as he obtains prior

authorization. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1)-(3)(A). If Mr. Ratchford files another petition, he

should be aware of the limitations period in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d).

DATED this 7th day of October, 2015.

____________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 5:07-cv-00216-BD Document 29 Filed 10/07/15 Page 2 of 2