Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-00315/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-00315-5/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

Robert Hemmerle,

Petitioner,

vs.

Charles L. Ryan, et al.,

 Respondents.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-04-0315-PHX-PGR 

 

 ORDER

This Court dismissed the petitioner’s habeas petition, filed pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2254, as time-barred on May 12, 2006. The Ninth Circuit, agreeing that

the habeas petition was filed after the expiration of the AEDPA’s statute of

limitations, affirmed the dismissal on appeal, Hemmerle v. Schriro, 495 F.3d

1069 (9th Cir.2007), and subsequently denied the petitioner’s request for

rehearing. The Supreme Court denied the petitioner’s petition for certiorari and

then denied the petitioner’s request for rehearing. This Court summarily denied

the petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration on January 8, 2008, and then entered

an order on December 3, 2009 that denied the petitioner’s Rule 60(b) Motion; that

order included a finding that no certificate of appealability should issue.

Notwithstanding the above, the petitioner has now filed a Motion for

Reconsideration of the Order Denying the Rule 60(b) Motion (doc. #72), wherein

Case 2:04-cv-00315-PGR Document 73 Filed 12/17/09 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

- 2 -

he requests that the Court grant a certificate of appealability regarding the Rule

60(b) motion. The Court finds that the motion should be summarily denied

because the Court has already stated why it will not issue a certificate of

appealability and nothing in the petitioner’s motion raises any grounds not already

rejected by the Court. Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that the petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration of the

Order denying the Rule 60(b) Motion (doc. #72) is denied.

DATED this 16th day of December, 2009.

Case 2:04-cv-00315-PGR Document 73 Filed 12/17/09 Page 2 of 2