Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01062/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01062-1/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 RP

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Michael Smalling, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

State of Arizona, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 09-1062-PHX-MHM (DKD)

ORDER

Pending before the Court in this closed case is Petitioner’s “Motion to Reconsider”

(Doc. #6), which the Court will deny.

I. Procedural Background

On May 18, 2009, Petitioner Michael Smalling, who is confined in the Great Plains

Correctional Facility in Hinton, Oklahoma, filed a pro se pleading entitled “Motion for Relief

from a Void Judgment under Rule 60(c)” (Doc. #1) (Motion for Relief). Petitioner did not

pay a filing fee or file an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis.

By Order filed July 21, 2009 (Doc. #3), the Court denied the Motion for Relief for

lack of jurisdiction and as untimely, and dismissed this action. Judgment was entered on July

21, 2009 (Doc. #4).

On July 29, 2009, Petitioner filed a “Petition for Default Judgment” (Doc. #5), dated

July 24, 2009. In his Petition, Petitioner sought a “judgment in default against the

Defendants” pursuant to Rule 55(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Because this

Case 2:09-cv-01062-MHM--DKD Document 9 Filed 08/17/09 Page 1 of 3
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 -

action was dismissed prior to Petitioner’s filing of his Petition, the Court, by Order filed

August 11, 2009 (Doc. #8), denied Petitioner’s attempt to have a judgment of default entered

against the Respondents.

II. Motion for Reconsideration

On August 3, 2009, Petitioner filed his “Motion to Reconsider” (Doc. #6), in which

Petitioner seeks to have the Court reconsider his Motion for Relief (Doc. #1). In the present

case, where Petitioner submitted his Motion to Reconsider after entry of judgment, the only

appropriate procedural devices are: (1) a motion to alter or amend judgment pursuant to Rule

59(e), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; or (2) a motion for relief from judgment pursuant

to Rule 60(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

Because Petitioner’s Motion to Reconsider calls into question the correctness of the

underlying judgment, it is in reality a Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend judgment pursuant

to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Court will construe it as such.

Fischer v. United States Department of Justice, 759 F.2d 461, 464 (5th Cir. 1985). See also

Munden v. Ultra Alaska Associates, 849 F.2d 383, 387 (9th Cir. 1988); Sea Ranch

Association v. California Coastal Zone Conservation Comm’n, 537 F.2d 1058, 1061 (9th Cir

1978); 9 J. Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 204.12[1] (1985) (“Any motion that draws

into question the correctness of the judgment is functionally a motion under Civil Rule 59(e),

whatever its label.”).

“Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with newly

discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust,

or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah

County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993) (citation omitted).

Here, after having considered the foregoing standards, and liberally reviewing the

circumstances of Petitioner’s case, the Court’s previous Order filed July 21, 2009 (Doc. #3),

the record in this case, and Petitioner’s Motion to Reconsider, the Court declines to reverse

itself and set aside its Order dismissing this case (Doc. #3) and Judgment entered July 21,

Case 2:09-cv-01062-MHM--DKD Document 9 Filed 08/17/09 Page 2 of 3
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 -

2009 (Doc. #4).

 Petitioner has done nothing more than disagree with this Court and has failed to

demonstrate a clear error of law or that the Court’s decision was manifestly unjust. Also,

Petitioner has neither alleged that there has been an intervening change of controlling law,

nor has he offered newly discovered evidence that would make reconsideration appropriate.

As noted in the Court’s July 21, 2009 Order (Doc. #3), Petitioner’s Motion for Relief

was untimely to the extent that Petitioner was seeking reconsideration in his Motion for

Relief of the undersigned Judge’s ruling dismissing his amended petition in CV 05-2043-

PHX-MHM (DKD), and that while Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure can

be used to relieve a party from a final judgment, order, or proceeding issued by a United

States District Court, it cannot be used to relieve Petitioner of an order, judgment or

proceeding issued by a state court, such as the Maricopa County Superior Court. 

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s “Motion to Reconsider” (Doc. #6), which the

Court construes as being brought pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, is denied.

DATED this 13th day of August, 2009.

Case 2:09-cv-01062-MHM--DKD Document 9 Filed 08/17/09 Page 3 of 3