Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_99-cv-02157/USCOURTS-azd-2_99-cv-02157-0/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

William Edward Morehead, 

Petitioner,

vs.

Dora B. Schriro, et al.,

Respondents.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-99-2157-PHX-PGR

 

 ORDER

Pending before the Court is the petitioner’s Application for Leave to File

Rule 60(b)(4) for Relief from a Judgment or Order (doc. #34). Having considered

the parties’ memoranda in light of the record, the Court finds that the petitioner’s

motion should be denied.

Background

The petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2254 on December 8, 1999. The petitioner raised several grounds for

relief in his petition, one of which, Ground 7, alleged that his consecutive

sentences for a single act amounted to double jeopardy and cruel and unusual

punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Magistrate Judge Verkamp

entered a Report and Recommendation on August 15, 2000 (doc. #18) in which

he recommended that the petition be denied in part because the petitioner had

Case 2:99-cv-02157-PGR Document 36 Filed 05/27/08 Page 1 of 4
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 -

procedurally defaulted on six of his grounds for relief, including the claims raised

in Ground 7, and had not shown any cause for those procedural defaults. The

Court entered an order on November 8, 2000 (doc. #21) that adopted the Report

and Recommendation and dismissed the § 2254 petition; the judgment of

dismissal (doc. #22) was entered that same day. The petitioner filed his notice of

appeal (doc. #23) on November 20, 2002. The Ninth Circuit issued a certificate

of appealability in an order entered on March 22, 2001 (doc. #27); the certificate

was limited solely to the issue of whether this Court properly dismissed the

petitioner's ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim. The Ninth Circuit

dismissed the appeal on September 16, 2002 (doc. #28) on the ground that the

petitioner had waived the only issue allowed by the certificate of appealability

because he failed to mention that issue in his opening brief; the Ninth Circuit's

mandate was issued on January 29, 2003 (doc. #28). The petitioner filed a

petition for certiorari with the United States Supreme Court on January 22, 2003,

but it was denied on February 24, 2003. 

The petitioner filed a Motion for Relief from a Judgment or Order (doc. #29)

pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(6) on May 25, 2005. The petitioner argued in that

motion that the Court erred by improperly dismissing his prosecutorial misconduct

claim in his § 2254 petition as being waived or procedurally defaulted. The Court,

in an order (doc. #33) entered on March 31, 2006, denied the motion because the

petitioner had not established any Rule 60(b)(6) ground for vacating the

judgment.

Discussion

The petitioner’s current motion, filed pursuant to Rule 60(b)(4) on March

31, 2008, argues that the trial court’s imposition of consecutive sentences on him

Case 2:99-cv-02157-PGR Document 36 Filed 05/27/08 Page 2 of 4
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

- 3 -

for a single act that was punishable under different sections of state law violated 

A.R.S. § 13-116 and constituted cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth

Amendment. The petitioner seeks in part to have his habeas petition granted and

his conviction and sentence reversed.

To the extent that the petitioner’s motion is liberally construed as seeking to

have the Court reconsider its judgment dismissing his claim raised in Ground 7 of

his § 2254 petition, the Court initially concludes that the petitioner may properly

seek such reconsideration through the mechanism of a Rule 60(b) motion

because the Court, by finding that the petitioner had procedurally defaulted on

Ground 7, never reached the merits of that claim. See Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545

U.S. 524, 125 S.Ct. 2641, 2648 and n.4 (2005) (Supreme Court, in holding that a

motion for relief from judgment which challenges only the district court's prior

ruling that the habeas petition was time-barred is not the equivalent of a second

or successive petition and may be considered under Rule 60(b), noted that a

habeas petitioner may bring a Rule 60(b) motion if he is asserting "that a previous

ruling which precluded a merits determination was in error - for example, a denial

for such reasons as failure to exhaust, procedural default, or statute-of-limitations

bar."); see also, Hamilton v. Newland, 374 F.3d 822, 825 (9th Cir. 2004) (Court

noted that "Rule 60(b) is the appropriate rule to invoke when one wishes a court

to reconsider claims it has already decided [in a § 2254 petition]."), cert. denied,

544 U.S. 908 (2005) .

The Court further concludes, however, that the petitioner has not made any

showing that the Court’s judgment is void for purposes of Rule 60(b)(4), or that he

is entitled to relief under any other provision of Rule 60(b) - he does not in fact

contend, must less establish, that the Court erred in concluding that he had

Case 2:99-cv-02157-PGR Document 36 Filed 05/27/08 Page 3 of 4
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

 The petitioner’s argument that the trial court violated state law in

sentencing him to consecutive sentences, which does not appear to be a claim

he even raised in his § 2254 petition, cannot in any case be a basis for granting

him habeas relief because it is well established that “[t]he decision whether to

impose sentences concurrently or consecutively is a matter of state criminal

procedure and is not within the purview of federal habeas corpus.” Cacoperdo v.

Demosthenes, 37 F.3d 504, 507 (9th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1026

(1995).

- 4 -

procedurally defaulted on Ground 7 and had not shown any cause for that

procedural default; his only arguments improperly go to the merits of his

contention that he should not have been given consecutive sentences.1

Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that petitioner Morehead’s Application for Leave to File

Rule 60(b)(4) for Relief from a Judgment or Order (doc. #34) is denied.

DATED this 27th day of May, 2008.

Case 2:99-cv-02157-PGR Document 36 Filed 05/27/08 Page 4 of 4