Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_99-cv-01591/USCOURTS-azd-2_99-cv-01591-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 28:2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentence

---

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

United States of America, )

)

Plaintiff/Respondent ) No. CV-99-1591-PHX-RCB(LOA)

)

vs. ) O R D E R

)

Castulo Soto-Valdez, )

)

Defendant/Movant. )

)

On February 17, 2012, Magistrate Judge Lawrence O.

Anderson, issued a Report and Recommendation (“R & R”)

recommending denial of the “Motion for Relief from Judgment

Under Rule 60(b)(6)” filed by movant pro se Castulo Soto-Valdez.

R & R (Doc. 12) at 1:16. The movant timely filed objections.

Thereafter, on July 16, 2012, the movant filed a “Motion to

Supplement Pending Motion Under Rule 60(b)(6) with Recent

Circuit Law” (Doc. 14) (emphasis omitted). More specifically,

the movant is seeking to supplement his pending motion for

relief under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(6), and have this court consider

the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ recent decision in Mackey

Case 2:99-cv-01591-RCB Document 15 Filed 07/27/12 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 -

v. Hoffman, 682 F.3d 1247 (9 Cir. June 25, 2012). Movant th

further claims, as he has previously, see Mot. (Doc. 11), that

the Supreme Court’s January 18, 2012, decision in Maples v.

Thomas, ___ U.S. ___, 132 S.Ct. 912, 181 L.Ed.2d 807 (2012),

also supports his motion for Rule 60(b)(6) relief. See Mot.

(Doc. 14) at 1-2. Lastly, movant cites to another recent

Supreme Court decision, decided after the issuance of the R &

R herein, Martinez v. Ryan, ___ U.S. ___, 132 S.Ct. 1309, 182

L.Ed.2d 272 (March 20, 2012), as supporting his claimed

entitlement to relief under Rule 60(b)(6).

In light of the foregoing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

(1) respondent, the United States of America, shall file a

response to movant’s Motion to Supplement (Doc. 14), addressing

the recently decided cases referenced therein and there

applicability, if any, to the issues presently before the court

in movant’s motion for relief under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(6);

(2) respondent’s response shall be filed no later than

fifteen (15) days from the date of entry of this order; and 

(3) movant’s reply, if any, shall be filed no later than

ten (10) days from the date of entry and service of the

response.

DATED this 27 day of July, 2012. th

Copies to counsel of record and defendant/movant pro se

Case 2:99-cv-01591-RCB Document 15 Filed 07/27/12 Page 2 of 2