Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_05-cv-00144/USCOURTS-azd-3_05-cv-00144-5/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

Daniel Weldon Hackman,

Petitioner, 

v.

Dora B. Schriro, et al.,

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-144-PCT-SMM

ORDER

Currently before the Court is Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration of an Order

Denying and Dismissing Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 38). Petitioner's federal

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus was filed in January of 2005. (Doc. 1). Therein, Petitioner

challenged his convictions for kidnaping, burglary, aggravated assault, and five counts of

sexual assault following a jury trial in Navajo County Superior Court. Respondents opposed

the Petition, arguing that grounds one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, eleven and

twelve were procedurally defaulted and that claims nine and ten were due to be denied on the

merits. (Doc. 9). In the alternative, Respondents contended that grounds four, five, six, seven

and twelve were not cognizable on federal habeas review. 

On January 13, 2005, the matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Morton Sitver for

a Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 2). On February 10, 2006, Judge Sitver issued a Report

and Recommendation, advising this Court that Petitioner’s Petition should be denied and

dismissed with prejudice. (Doc. 18). Thereafter, Petitioner filed Objections (Doc. 26) to

Judge Sitver’s Report and Recommendation. After considering Judge Sitver’s Report and

Recommendation and Petitioner’s Objections thereto, on May 17, 2006, the Court adopted

Case 3:05-cv-00144-SMM Document 49 Filed 04/30/08 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

 1 In light of Plaintiff’s failure to articulate a standard of review, the Court will

consider this motion under Rule 60(b), Motion for Relief from Final Judgment or Order.

- 2 -

the Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 28). On February 14, 2008, Petitioner filed the

instant motion. (Doc. 38).

Standard of Review1

 Rule 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).

Discussion

 Petitioner has objected once again to the February 10, 2006 Report and

Recommendation filed by Judge Sitver. However, in the instant Motion for Reconsideration

of his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Petitioner raises the same arguments as he raised

in his original objections, meanwhile, failing to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure. Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). Plaintiff fails to offer any evidence of a change in controlling

law. He further fails to argue that new evidence has come to light that would materially

Case 3:05-cv-00144-SMM Document 49 Filed 04/30/08 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 -

affect his case, and likewise he fails to successfully contend that a clear error has occurred

thereby causing manifest injustice that must be prevented by reconsideration. Fed.R.Civ.P.

60(b). According to Petitioner, the entire Report and Recommendation denying his Petition

for Writ of Habeas Corpus was a clear error, however, such is not the case under controlling

authority. See Doc. 28. Moreover, Petitioner steadfastly maintains his innocence, however,

such is not the standard for reconsideration by this Court. Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b).

 Accordingly, 

 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED DENYING Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of

an Order Denying and Dismissing Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (Doc. 38).

 DATED this 30th day of April, 2008.

Case 3:05-cv-00144-SMM Document 49 Filed 04/30/08 Page 3 of 3