Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-00148/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-00148-4/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

JEFFREY JAMES FAULKNER,

Petitioner,

v.

DORA B. SCHRIRO, et al.,

Respondents.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-0148-PHX-SMM

ORDER

Before the Court is Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration RE: Rule 60(b) (Doc.

72). After considering Petitioner’s arguments, the Court finds as follows.

BACKGROUND

Petitioner Jeffrey James Faulkner, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison

Complex in Florence, filed his original Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2254 on January 12, 2005 (Doc. 1). That petition was ordered served, but on

May 9, 2005, Petitioner sought leave to amend his petition. (Doc. 10). The motion was

granted (Order 10/20/05, Doc. 17), and Petitioner’s First Amended Petition (Doc. 18) was

filed the same day. Thereafter, on March 2, 2006, Petitioner filed his second motion to

amend (Doc. 24), which was granted on March 29, 2006, resulting in the filing of the

present Second Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 26). The matter was

referred to Magistrate Judge Jay R. Irwin for a Report and Recommendation. 

On April 16, 2007, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation with

this Court (Doc. 15). On June 15, 2007, Petitioner filed his Objection (Doc. 55) to the

Report and Recommendation which was accompanied by a Declaration (Doc. 56). Then,

Case 2:05-cv-00148-SMM Document 73 Filed 04/09/09 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

27

28

- 2 -

on October 9, 2007, this Court issued an Order adopting Judge Irwin’s recommendation,

denying the Petitioner’s Second Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, and

dismissing the action with prejudice (Doc. 57). Judgment was entered against Petitioner

the same day (Doc. 58). On October 22, 2007, Petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal (Doc.

59) , and on January 31, 2008, the appeal was terminated by the Ninth Circuit Court of

Appeals (Doc. 69). A later filed “Motion Requesting an Extension of Time to File a

Petition for Rehearing” was construed by the Ninth Circuit as a motion to reconsider and

denied (Doc. 71). Finally, Petitioner filed the present Motion for Reconsideration on

January 12, 2009 (Doc. 72), over a year after this Court’s Order adopting the Report and

Recommendation and the entry of judgment.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) permits reconsideration of a district court

order based on: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2)

newly-discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered in

time to move for a new trial under Rule 59; (3) fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct

by an adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied,

released, or discharged, or a prior judgment upon which it is based has been reversed or

otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective

application; or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment. 

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1)-(b)(6). Rule 60 reconsideration is generally appropriate in

three instances: (1) when there has been an intervening change of controlling law; (2)

new evidence has come to light; or (3) when necessary to correct a clear error or prevent

manifest injustice. School District No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir.

1993). 

A Rule 60(b) motion must be brought within a “reasonable” time, which cannot be

more than one year if the motion is based on mistake, newly-discovered evidence, or

fraud. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).

Case 2:05-cv-00148-SMM Document 73 Filed 04/09/09 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

27

28

- 3 -

DISCUSSION

Petitioner asks the Court to reconsider its October 9, 2007 ruling adopting the

Report and Recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying his Second Amended

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Specifically, Petitioner asks the Court to reconsider

Ground Four of Petitioner’s Second Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, in

which he alleges that his due process rights were violated by the aggravation of his

sentence by factors not determined by the jury, in violation of Apprendi v. New Jersey,

530 U.S. 466 (2000), and Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004). Petitioner states

that he has been alerted to a “new intervening change in controlling law” that affects his

Apprendi claim for relief and makes it meritorious. This alleged new controlling law is

the Ninth Circuit case of Butler v. Curry, 528 F.3d 624 (9th Cir. 2008), decided after

Petitioner’s appeal was dismissed. 

Petitioner bases his Motion for Reconsideration on Rule 60(b)(6), which allows a

court to amend a judgment for “any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the

judgment.” (Doc. 72, p.4) Petitioner argues that the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Butler v.

Curry, 528 F.3d 624 is such a reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment

(Id. p.5). 

However, it is well settled that Rule 60(b)(6) is to be “used sparingly” and only to

“prevent manifest injustice.” U.S. Alpine Land & Reservoir Co., 984 F.2d 1047, 1049

(9th Cir. 1993). “The rule is to be utilized only where extraordinary circumstances

prevented a party from taking timely action to prevent or correct an erroneous judgment.” 

Id.; see also United States v. Washington, 394 F.3d 1152, 1157 (9th Cir. 2005); Latshaw

v. Trainer Wortham & Co., 452 F.3d 1097, 1103-04 (9th Cir. 2006). “In order to bring

himself within the limited area of Rule 60(b)(6), a petitioner is required to establish the

existence of extraordinary circumstances which prevented or rendered him unable to

prosecute an appeal.” Martella v. Marine Cooks & Stewards Union, 448 F.2d 729, 730

(9th Cir. 1971). Petitioner’s central argument under Rule 60(b)(6) is that the change in

the law embodied in Butler constitutes an “extraordinary circumstance” under the rule. 

Case 2:05-cv-00148-SMM Document 73 Filed 04/09/09 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

27

28

- 4 -

This argument must be rejected as a subsequent change in the law does not constitute an

extraordinary circumstance for purposes of Rule 60(b)(6). Tomlin v. McDaniel, 865 F.2d

209 (9th Cir. 1989). Petitioner was not prevented from taking action to correct what he

alleged was an erroneous judgment by this Court. Indeed, Petitioner timely appealed to

the Ninth Circuit and the judgment against him became final before the law changed, and

thus, his motion will be denied. 

Furthermore, the Court’s interest in finality weighs against finding fifteen months

a reasonable time for bringing this Rule 60(b) motion. The Court’s Order adopting the

magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation was dated October 9, 2007 (Doc. 57). 

Judgment was entered against Plaintiff that same day (Doc. 58). Plaintiff then appealed

the judgement against him to the Ninth Circuit (Doc. 59), which subsequently dismissed

the appeal and denied reconsideration (Docs 69,71). Only after his appeal was

unsuccessful did Petitioner file this Motion for Reconsideration under Rule 60(b) on

January 12, 2009 (Doc. 72). The Court finds that Petitioner’s motion was not timely

filed.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED DENYING Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration

RE: Rule 60(b) (Doc. 72). 

DATED this 9th day of April, 2009.

Case 2:05-cv-00148-SMM Document 73 Filed 04/09/09 Page 4 of 4