Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Anaya v. Hatch

United States District Court, D. New Mexico

November 16, 2018

ARTURO ANAYA, Petitioner,
v.
TIMOTHY HATCH and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Respondents.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IFP ON APPEAL

          MARTHA VÁZQUEZ, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         THIS MATTER is before the Court on Petitioner Arturo Anaya's Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis on Appeal [Doc. 52], filed on October 30, 2018. The motion fails to present a reasoned, non-frivolous argument for appeal and, thus, will be denied.

         Background

         Petitioner, proceeding pro se, filed a petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on April 22, 2016. [Doc. 1]. The magistrate judge found that the petition contained both exhausted and unexhausted claims. [Doc. 28] at 7-8. He gave Petitioner an opportunity either to withdraw the unexhausted claims or dismiss the entire action without prejudice (in order to allow Petitioner to take his unexhausted claims to state court). Id. at 8-9. Petitioner declined to withdraw his unexhausted claims, [Doc. 29] at 3, and on recommendation by the magistrate judge, the previous presiding judge dismissed the petition without prejudice, [Doc. 30] at 12. Final judgment was entered on November 6, 2017. [Doc. 32].

         Petitioner filed his first post-judgment motion on November 16, 2017, asserting that his state-court conviction should be overturned because he acted in self-defense. [Doc. 33]. The Court denied the motion on February 23, 2018, because it failed to meet the Rule 59(e) standard for relief from judgment, and because it failed to address the reason his petition was denied in the first place, which was lack of exhaustion. [Doc. 36] at 4-6.

         Petitioner filed his second and third post-judgment motions on July 31 and August 17, 2018. [Docs. 38, 41]. He continued to argue that his state conviction should be overturned because he acted in self-defense. Id. The Court denied those motions because they lacked any sound basis in the controlling facts or law of the case; his case had been properly dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust. [Doc. 43]. Petitioner then filed fourth and fifth post-judgment motions[1][Docs. 45, 47] on August 29 and September 5, 2018, which the Court summarily denied on October 11, 2018, [Doc. 48].

         Petitioner filed his notice of appeal on October 19, 2018. [Doc. 49]. He now moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. [Doc. 52].

         Standard

         Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure states, in pertinent part:

[A] party to a district-court action who desires to appeal in forma pauperis must file a motion in the district court. The party must attach an affidavit that:
(A) shows in the detail prescribed by Form 4 of the Appendix of Forms the party's inability to pay or to give security for fees and costs;
(B) claims an entitlement to redress; and
(C) states the issues that the party intends to present on ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.