Opinion
CASE NO.: 5:07CV00216 BD
10-07-2015
JEFFREY SCOTT RATCHFORD PETITIONER v. WENDY KELLEY, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction RESPONDENT
ORDER
Petitioner Jeffrey Scott Ratchford has filed a motion for reconsideration of the Order denying his Rule 60(b) motion. (Docket entry #28) Mr. Ratchford's motion (#28) is DENIED.
As noted in the Order denying relief under Rule 60(b), Mr. Ratchford presents compelling claims (#27), but Rule 60 is not the appropriate vehicle to raise those claims. Mr. Ratchford did not file his newly discovered evidence claim within one year, as required. See Gonzalez v. Crosby, 125 S.Ct. 2641, 2649, 545 U.S. 524, 535 (2005); FED.R.CIV.P. 60(b)(2); FED.R.CIV.P. 60(c)(1). He filed his "catch-all" claims eight years after judgment, which is not within a "reasonable time." FED.R.CIV.P. 60(b)(6) and (c)(1).
Mr. Ratchford argues that his claims should not be considered a second or successive petition. (#28) If that is the case, 28 U.S.C. § 2254 provides an avenue for presenting newly discovered evidence and claims based on a new rule of constitutional law. Mr. Ratchford may also bring a successive claim as long as he obtains prior authorization. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1)-(3)(A). If Mr. Ratchford files another petition, he should be aware of the limitations period in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d).
DATED this 7th day of October, 2015.
/s/_________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE