Opinion
Civil Action No. 05-cv-01767-WYD-MEH
11-08-2012
CARL WILLIAM PURSLEY, JR., Applicant, v. AL ESTEP, Warden of LCF, and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF COLORADO, Respondents.
Chief Judge Wiley Y. Daniel
ORDER
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Plaintiff Carl Pursley Jr.'s ("Pursley") Motion for Relief from Final Judgment Pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6) [DE-111] and Motion for Order to Expand Record [DE-112]. By these motions, Pursley seeks relief from the final judgment entered in this case on November 1, 2006 [DE-35]. Pursley suggests that he is entitled to relief under Rule 60(b)(6) due to a recent Supreme Court decision, Martinez v. Ryan, 132 S.Ct. 1309 (2012), that changed the relevant case law. Having reviewed Pursley's papers and the applicable law, I must deny both of his motions.
Relief should not be granted pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6) unless the movant shows exceptional or extraordinary circumstances. Johnston v. Cigna Corp., 14 F.3d 486, 497 (10th Cir. 1993). The rule in the Tenth circuit is that not even a change in the law constitutes an extraordinary circumstance which would allow relief under Rule 60(b)(6). Pierce v. Cook & Co., 518 F.2d 720, 722 (10th Cir. 1975). I do not find the minor change in law reflected in Martinez to provide the extraordinary circumstances warranting relief under Rule 60(b)(6). See also Adams v. Thaler, 679 F.3d 312, 320 (5th Cir. 2012)(The "decision in Martinez ... does not constitute an 'extraordinary circumstance' under Supreme Court and our precedent to warrant Rule 60(b)(6) relief."). Accordingly, it is
ORDERED THAT Applicant Carl Pursley Jr.'s Motion for Relief from Final Judgment Pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6) [DE-111] and Motion for Order to Expand Record [DE-112] are DENIED.
BY THE COURT:
____________
Wiley Y. Daniel
Chief United States District Judge