Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_00-cv-00226/USCOURTS-azd-2_00-cv-00226-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
George Luis Herrera
Petitioner
Sam Sublett
Respondent
Grant Woods
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

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

GEORGE LUIS HERRERA, )

 )

Petitioner, ) No. CIV 00-226 PHX RCB

 )

vs. ) O R D E R

 )

SAM SUBLETT and GRANT WOODS, )

 )

 )

Respondents. ) )

On February 7, 2000, Petitioner George Luis Herrera filed

a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Mot. (doc. # 1). On

November 22, 2002, the Court issued an order denying the

petition as untimely under the one-year limitations period of

the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996

("AEDPA"). Order (doc. # 21). Shortly thereafter,

Petitioner attempted to appeal the denial of his petition,

see Notice of Appeal (doc. # 25), but this Court and the

Ninth Circuit both denied Petitioner's request for a

Case 2:00-cv-00226-RCB Document 34 Filed 03/30/07 Page 1 of 4
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

 A certificate of appealability must issue before an appeal may

be taken from a final order denying habeas relief. 28 U.S.C. §

2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b).

- 2 -

certificate of appealability.1 Orders (doc. ## 24, 26).

On July 13, 2006, Petitioner filed a Rule 60(b) motion

for reconsideration, Mot. (doc. # 27), which the Court denied

on December 4, 2006, Order (doc. # 29). On December 15,

2006, Petitioner filed a timely notice of appeal with this

Court. Notice of Appeal (doc. # 31); see Fed. R. App. P.

4(a)(1)(A), 4(c)(1). Currently before the Court is

Petitioner's motion requesting the status of his appeal. 

Mot. (doc. # 32). The motion will be granted to the extent

that the status of Petitioner's appeal is resolved as set

forth in this Order.

The Court's docketing staff has inquired whether a

Certificate of Appealability ("COA") will issue so that this

matter may be submitted to the United States Court of Appeals

for the Ninth Circuit. Ordinarily, a COA must issue before

an appeal may be taken from "the final order in a habeas

corpus proceeding in which the detention complained of arises

out of process issued by a State court." 28 U.S.C. §

2253(c)(1). In at least one instance, the COA requirement

has been applied to an appeal taken from the denial of a Rule

60(b) motion. See Ortiz v. Stewart, 195 F.3d 520, 520-21

(9th Cir. 1999). However, in that case, the petitioner's

Rule 60(b) motion "[was] subject to the COA requirement only

because [the court] found that the motion[] had to be

construed as [a] successive habeas petition[]." United

Case 2:00-cv-00226-RCB Document 34 Filed 03/30/07 Page 2 of 4
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 -

States v. Kwan, 407 F.3d 1005, 1010 (9th Cir. 2005)

(explaining Ortiz); see also Ortiz, 195 F.3d at 520-21. 

Therefore, in deciding whether Petitioner's appeal from the

denial of his Rule 60(b) motion (doc. # 27) should be subject

to the COA requirement, the decisive inquiry is whether that

motion constituted a successive petition under 28 U.S.C. §

2244(b).

On facts virtually identical to the present case, the

Supreme Court held that a state prisoner's Rule 60(b) motion

did not warrant treatment as a successive petition where the

motion only challenged the district court's statute of

limitations ruling that precluded a decision on the merits of

the original petition. See Gonzales v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524,

535-36 (2005) ("Because petitioner's Rule 60(b) motion

challenges only the District Court's previous ruling on the

AEDPA statute of limitations, it is not the equivalent of a

successive habeas petition."). Similarly, in the present

case, rather than construing and denying Petitioner's motion

(doc. # 27) as an unauthorized successive petition, the Court

denied Petitioner's motion on its merits as a Rule 60(b)

motion, as it challenged only the Court's earlier

determination with respect to the AEDPA's statute of

limitations bar and did not revisit or raise any arguments

for vacating or modifying Petitioner's sentence. Cf. Crosby,

545 U.S. at 534 (explaining "that a Rule 60(b) motion that

seeks to revisit the federal court's denial on the merits of

a claim for relief should be treated as a successive habeas

petition"). Because Petitioner's Rule 60(b) motion (doc. #

Case 2:00-cv-00226-RCB Document 34 Filed 03/30/07 Page 3 of 4
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

- 4 -

27) did not revisit the merits of the claims asserted in his

original petition, or raise new claims that could have been

asserted in the same petition, it was properly ruled upon as

Rule 60(b) motion, and, as such, is not subject to the COA

requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1). See Kwan, 407 F.3d at

1010. The Clerk of the Court will therefore be directed to

notify the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth

Circuit of the notice of appeal in this matter (doc. # 31),

and to submit the certificate of record in conformance with

Circuit Rule 11-2.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Petitioner's motion

requesting the status of his appeal (doc. # 32) is GRANTED to

the extent that the status of his appeal is as set forth in

this Order.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of the Court to

notify the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth

Circuit of the notice of appeal (doc. # 31) in this matter,

and to submit the certificate of record in conformance with

Circuit Rule 11-2.

DATED this 29th day of March, 2007.

Copies to counsel of record and Petitioner pro se

Case 2:00-cv-00226-RCB Document 34 Filed 03/30/07 Page 4 of 4