Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_07-cv-08094/USCOURTS-azd-3_07-cv-08094-6/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Kenneth James Kanger,

Petitioner, 

v.

Charles L. Ryan, et. al.,

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 07-CV-8094-PHX-PGR (MHB)

ORDER

Before the Court is Petitioner’s Motion for Relief from a Judgment/Order under Rule

60(b). (Doc. 110.) On November 4, 2008, this Court entered an order accepting and adopting

Magistrate Judge Burns’s Report and Recommendation, which recommended that the Court

deny and dismiss Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (Doc. 72.) This Court

denied a certificate of appealability, as did the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The appeal

was terminated on November 12, 2009. (Doc. 92.) On February 25, 2011, Petitioner filed a

Motion for Relief from a Judgment/Order under Rule 60(b) (Doc. 93), which the Court

denied on September 19, 2011 (Doc. 97). On December 23, 2011, the Court of Appeals

denied a certificate of appealability. (Doc. 108.) Petitioner filed the pending motion on

September 24, 2012.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) entitles the moving party to relief from

judgment for the following reasons: mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;

newly discovered evidence; fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse

party; the judgment is void; the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; or any

other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).

Case 3:07-cv-08094-PGR Document 113 Filed 08/14/13 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

27

28

- 2 -

Petitioner contends, as he did in his previous Rule 60(b) motion, that the Court

wrongly denied his habeas claims on procedural grounds. According to Petitioner, this denial

demonstrates a “lack of integrity and lack of adequacy” on the part of the Court and the

habeas proceedings. (Doc. 110 at 4.) Petitioner also contends that he has made out a showing

of actual innocence under Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (1995). (Id. at 2–4.)

As addressed in the Court’s order denying Petitioner’s first 60(b) motion and in

Magistrate Judge Burns’s Report & Recommendation, these arguments fail. First, the

pending motion again constitutes a second or successive petition because Petitioner “seeks

leave to argue the merits of constitutional claims inadequately presented in or omitted from

his previous habeas petition.” Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 531 (2005). Pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2244(b), therefore, the motion must be dismissed. Next, Petitioner has not offered

new evidence supporting a credible claim of actual innocence. (See Doc. 72 at 11–13.)

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED denying Petitioner’s Motion for Relief from a

Judgment/Order under Rule 60(b) (Doc. 110).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying a certificate of appealability.

DATED this 14th day of August, 2013.

Case 3:07-cv-08094-PGR Document 113 Filed 08/14/13 Page 2 of 2