Opinion
CV-15-01316-PHX-SRB (ESW)
01-10-2022
Bobby Purcell, Petitioner, v. Charles L Ryan, et al., Respondents.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
HONORABLE EILEEN S. WILLETT UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
TO THE HONORABLE SUSAN R. BOLTON, SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:
Pending before the Court is Petitioner's “Motion for Relief from Judgment Under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure” (Doc. 34), Respondents' Response (Doc. 38), and Petitioner's Reply (Doc. 39). For the reasons explained below, the undersigned recommends that the Court grant Petitioner's Motion (Doc. 34).
On July 14, 2015, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1). As detailed in the Court's Screening Order:
Petitioner was convicted in Maricopa County Superior Court, case #CR1998-008705, of two counts of first-degree murder, nine counts of attempted first-degree murder, and one count each of aggravated assault and misconduct involving weapons. He was sentenced to multiple terms of imprisonment, including two terms of natural life imprisonment.(Doc. 7 at 2). In his single ground for relief, Petitioner asserted that his life sentences were unconstitutional pursuant to Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) because they were imposed for crimes he committed when he was sixteen years old. (Doc. 1 at 7). Petitioner requested that the Court order a new sentencing hearing. (Id. at 12). Petitioner also moved the Court to stay the habeas proceeding pending resolution of his state court appeal concerning the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. (Doc. 4). The Court granted Petitioner's Motion to Stay. (Doc. 13).
On March 1, 2018, Petitioner filed a “Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus as Moot” (Doc. 30). The Motion explained that after the Arizona Supreme Court denied Petitioner's Petition for Review, Petitioner sought certiorari review in the United States Supreme Court. (Id. at 2). The United States Supreme Court granted the petition for certiorari, vacated the Arizona Court of Appeals' decision affirming the trial court's denial of post-conviction relief, and remanded the matter to the Arizona Court of Appeals. (Id.). The State then stipulated that in light of Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) and Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S.Ct. 718 (2016), the Arizona Court of Appeals should grant post-conviction relief and remand the case to the trial court for resentencing. (Id.; Doc. 33-4). The Arizona Court of Appeals accepted the State's stipulation and remanded the case to the trial court for resentencing. (Id.; Doc. 30-2).
As it appeared that the state courts granted his requested relief, Petitioner voluntarily withdrew his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (Id. at 3). On March 6, 2018, the Court lifted the stay and dismissed the case as moot. (Doc. 31).
In his December 20, 2021 Motion (Doc. 34 at 4), Petitioner states that before the trial court held a resentencing hearing, the State moved to withdraw from the stipulation made before the Arizona Court of Appeals based on the United States Supreme Court's recent decision in Jones v. Mississippi, 141 S.Ct. 1307 (2021). The trial court granted the State's request, vacated the resentencing hearing, and dismissed Petitioner's post-conviction petition. (Id.; Doc. 33-8).
The Court may, on “motion and just terms, ” relieve a party from a final judgment for the following reasons:
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b);
(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party;
(4) the judgment is void;
(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or
(6) any other reason that justifies relief.Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). A motion under Rule 60(b)(6) “cannot be premised on another ground delineated in the Rule, it must be filed within a reasonable time, and it must demonstrate extraordinary circumstances justifying reopening the judgment.” Bynoe v. Baca, 966 F.3d 972, 979 (9th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1).
In their Response, Respondents recount that Petitioner filed his Rule 60(b) Motion (Doc. 34) thirty-four days after the trial court granted the State's motion to withdraw from the resentencing stipulation. (Doc. 38 at 5). Respondents concede that Petitioner has satisfied the “reasonable time” filing requirement of Rule 60(b)(6). (Id.). Respondents also concede that this matter can be characterized as an “extraordinary circumstance” under Rule 60(b)(6) as “[t]here is question that [Petitioner] voluntarily moved to dismiss his petition because of the resentencing stipulation.” (Id.). The undersigned concurs with the parties that this matter satisfies the requirements for reopening under Rule 60(b)(6). Accordingly, IT IS RECOMMENDED that the Court grant Petitioner's “Motion for Relief from Judgment Under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure” (Doc. 34).
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the Court reopen this matter under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) and require Respondents to answer the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) within forty days from the date the matter is reopened. It is also recommended that the Court order that Petitioner may file a reply to Respondents' answer within thirty days from the date of service of the answer.
This Report and Recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1) should not be filed until entry of the District Court's judgment. The parties shall have fourteen days from the date of service of a copy of this Report and Recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 6, 72. Thereafter, the parties have fourteen days within which to file a response to the objections. Failure to file timely objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation may result in the acceptance of the Report and Recommendation by the District Court without further review. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Failure to file timely objections to any factual determinations of the Magistrate Judge may be considered a waiver of a party's right to appellate review of the findings of fact in an order or judgment entered pursuant to the Magistrate Judge's recommendation. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72.