Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00914/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00914-1/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 KM

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Timothy Paul Olmos,

Petitioner, 

vs.

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 11-914-PHX-GMS (MEA)

ORDER

Petitioner Timothy Paul Olmos, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison ComplexEyman, filed a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and

an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. In a June 7, 2011 Order, the Court granted

the Application to Proceed and dismissed the Petition because Petitioner had proceedings still

pending in state court. 

On June 16, 2011, Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 8), which the

Court denied in a June 28, 2011 Order (Doc. 9). On July 21, 2011, Petitioner filed a “Motion

for Relief From a Judgment or Order Pursuant to Rule 60(b) FRCP” (Doc. 10). On August

3, 2011, Petitioner filed a “Motion for Leave to Supplement Rule 60(b) Motion” (Doc. 11).

Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides:

On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal

representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following

reasons:

Case 2:11-cv-00914-GMS--MEA Document 12 Filed 08/31/11 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 -

(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;

(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence,

could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial

under Rule 59(b);

(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic),

misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party;

(4) the judgment is void;

(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged; it is

based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated;

or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or

(6) any other reason that justifies relief.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b).

The Court has reviewed the Petition, the Order of dismissal, Petitioner’s Motion for

Relief from Judgment, and Petitioner’s Supplement to Motion for Relief from Judgment.

The Court finds no basis under Rule 60(b) to reconsider its dismissal of this action.

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) Petitioner’s July 21, 2011 Motion for Relief from Judgment (Doc. 10) is

denied.

(2) Petitioner’s August 3, 2011 Motion for Leave to Supplement (Doc. 11) is

denied as moot.

DATED this 31st day of August, 2011.

Case 2:11-cv-00914-GMS--MEA Document 12 Filed 08/31/11 Page 2 of 2