Free Motion for Miscellaneous Relief - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

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

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus ("Habeas Petition") [doc. 1]. On June 16, 2005, Petitioner filed his Motion for Relief from Order and Judgment Pursuant to Rule 60(b) ("Rule 60(b) Motion") [doc. 87]. On June 20, 2005, Petitioner filed a Motion to Entertain Motion for Relief from Order and Judgment Pursuant to Rule 60(b) ("Motion to Entertain Rule 60(b) Motion") [doc. 88]. On June 21, 2005, Petitioner filed his Motion for Certificate of Appealability ("COA") [doc. 90]. On June 22, 2005, this Court entered its Order from Chambers granting in part, and denying in part, the COA [doc. 92].1 Petitioner filed his Notice of Appeal on June 24, 2005 [doc. 91]. On July 6, 2005, this Court's Order from Chambers [RE: Motions at dockets 87 and 88] was filed [doc. 93]. In its Order, this Court granted both Petitioner's Rule 60(b) Motion and Motion to Entertain Rule 60(b) Motion, as well as vacated its earlier Order and Judgment dismissing Petitioner's Habeas Petition. (Id.) Thereafter, this Court's Order directed "[t]he parties [to] take such steps as are necessary to advise the Court of Appeals of this order" (Id. at 3), which Petitioner did by virtue of a Motion for Limited Remand to District Court and Stay of Briefing Schedule filed with the Court of Appeals on or about July 22, 2005 ("Motion for Limited Remand'). In that motion, Petitioner articulated his "understanding that once he filed `his notice of appeal of the district court's judgment denying his habeas corpus petition, the district court lost jurisdiction over the petition', such that any subsequently filed ruling on Petitioner's Rule 60(b) Motion would be `void for lack of jurisdiction.' Williams [v. Woodford], 384 F.3d [567], 586 [(9th Cir. 2004)]." (Id. at 4, fn.2). Based thereon, Petitioner moved the appellate court "for a limited remand of the pending appeal directing the district court to re-enter its ruling vacating its earlier Order and Judgment in the record upon remand when jurisdiction again is vested in the district court." (Id. at 3-4).

Although the Court's Order was not file-stamped until June 24, 2005, a courtesy copy was faxed from chambers to undersigned counsel on June 22, 2005 "[d]ue to the impending deadline for filing a notice of appeal." [doc. 92]

1

2
Case 2:02-cv-02368-JWS Document 104 Filed 05/11/2006 Page 1 of 1