Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_10-cv-08221/USCOURTS-azd-3_10-cv-08221-7/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ivan Ray Begay
Petitioner
United States of America
Respondent

Document Text:

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

 Plaintiff,

vs.

Ivan Ray Begay,

 Defendant/Movant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-10-08221-PCT-PGR 

No. CR-00-01222-PCT-PGR

 

 ORDER

 

 

Having considered the defendant’s Motion to Reopen Habeas Corpus

Pursuant to Fed.R. of Civ.P. Rule 60(B)(1-6), filed June 27, 2016, the Court finds

that it should be summarily denied. The issues raised in the motion, such as the

petitioner’s intoxication-based actual innocence claim, have all been rejected by the

Court in previous rulings. See e.g., Order (Doc. 40 in CV-10-08221) (“These new

contentions regarding his intoxication, the factual predicates for which existed and

were ripe when Begay’s first § 2255 petition was filed, are in substance a new claim

of error regarding his underlying conviction which is properly treated as a disguised

§ 2255 motion. United States v, Washington, 653 F.3d 1057, 1063 (9th Cir.2011).

Because this motion constitutes a second or successive § 2255 petition, the Court

has no jurisdiction to consider it due to Begay’s failure to first obtain the required 

Case 3:10-cv-08221-JAT Document 44 Filed 07/08/16 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

- 2 -

certification from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Id. at 1065; 28 U.S.C. §

2255(h).”) 

As both this Court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals have repeatedly

ruled, the petitioner’s § 2255 habeas action has been terminated and cannot be

reopened. The defendant simply has no viable claim of actual innocence, and no

viable claim of any alleged procedural irregularity related to his guilty plea that can

now be litigated any further. Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that the defendant’s Motion to Reopen Habeas Corpus

Pursuant to Fed.R. of Civ.P. Rule 60(B)(1-6) (Doc. 43 in CV-10-08221) is denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no certificate of appealability shall issue and

that the defendant is not entitled to appeal in forma pauperis because he has failed

to show that reasonable jurists would find this Court’s assessment of the

constitutional claims debatable or wrong, or that reasonable jurists would find it

debatable whether he has stated a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right

or debatable whether the Court was correct in its procedural ruling.

DATED this 7th day of July, 2016.

Case 3:10-cv-08221-JAT Document 44 Filed 07/08/16 Page 2 of 2