Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02287/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02287-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

Jimmy Lee Williams, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Michael D. Garvey, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-2287-PHX-SMM (LOA)

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s October 27, 2006 Motion for Relief from

Judgment or Order (Doc. #21). The Court will deny Plaintiff’s Motion.

On August 1, 2005, Plaintiff Jimmy Lee Williams, confined in the Arizona State

Prison Complex-Florence, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

The Court, on February 2, 2006, dismissed the Complaint with leave to amend. Plaintiff filed

a First Amended Complaint on March 3, 2006 (Doc. #8), which the Court dismissed on June

16, 2006 (Doc. #12). On the same date, the Court also dismissed this action and judgment

was entered.

In its June 16, 2006 Order, the Court found first that Plaintiff’s claims were barred by

the statute of limitations because Plaintiff’s claims related to a 1995 recommendation by the

Arizona Board of Executive Clemency to the Governor regarding Plaintiff’s criminal

conviction. The Court found that Plaintiff’s claims accrued ten years before the filing of the

Complaint and were therefore barred by the statute of limitations.

Case 2:05-cv-02287-SMM--LOA Document 25 Filed 12/14/06 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 -

The Court also found that even if Plaintiff’s claims were not barred by the statute of

limitations, Plaintiff’s claims were still subject to dismissal because the members of the

Arizona Board of Executive Clemency were entitled to immunity for their actions taken with

respect to prisoner’s sentence and release.

On June 28, 2006, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment (Doc. #14),

which the Court denied by order filed August 22, 2006 (Doc. #15). On September 1, 2006,

Plaintiff has filed a Notice of Appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (Doc. #16).

Plaintiff’s October 27, 2006 Motion for Relief from Judgment or Order (Doc. #21)

raises no new arguments or evidence which would support reconsideration of the Court’s

dismissal of this action. Accordingly, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief from

Judgment or Order.

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s October 27, 2006 Motion for Relief from Judgment

or Order (Doc. #21) is denied.

DATED this 13th day of December, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-02287-SMM--LOA Document 25 Filed 12/14/06 Page 2 of 2