United States District Court, D. New Mexico
PEDRO J. “PETE” AMARO, Petitioner,
R.C. SMITH, Warden, et al, Respondents.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
WILLIAM P. JOHNSON CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the Court on Pedro Amaro's Pro
Se Motion for Reconsideration (Motion) (Doc. 25). Amaro
asks the Court to reconsider the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 habeas petition. Having considered the Motion,
the record, and applicable law, the Court will deny the
2004, Amaro was convicted of first degree murder, tampering
with evidence, and burglary in New Mexico's Ninth
Judicial District Court, No. D-905-CR-2001-00182. Amaro filed
a capital appeal to the New Mexico Supreme Court (NMSC),
which affirmed the conviction and sentence on August 19,
2005. About ten years later, Amaro filed a state habeas
petition. The state court dismissed the petition, and the
NMSC denied certiorari review. On August 30, 2017, Amaro
filed a “Class Action Habeas Petition” under 28
U.S.C. § 2254. He sought habeas relief on behalf of
every single prisoner sentenced in New Mexico's Ninth
Judicial District Court between 1979 and 2012/2013.
Memorandum Opinion and Order entered December 5, 2017, the
Court dismissed all “class action” claims and
directed Amaro to show cause why his individual § 2254
claims should not be dismissed as untimely. Id. The
Court noted the limitation period expired in 2006, one year
after the defendant's conviction becomes final.
See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A). In his
show-cause response, Amaro argued the one-year limitation
period was tolled for at least nine years because: (1) the
state prevented him from filing a habeas petition; (2) he
experienced health issues in 2012; (3) he could not obtain
counsel; and (4) he did not “discover” the facts
supporting his habeas claims until the NMSC issued De
Leon v. Hartley, 2014-NMSC-005, 316 P.3d 896.
Alternatively, Amaro argued the one-year limitation period
did not apply because he was actually innocent of the crime.
By a Memorandum Opinion and Order entered May 24, 2018, the
Court determined tolling did not apply and dismissed the
untimely habeas petition. Amaro filed the Motion to
Reconsider three weeks later.
moves for reconsideration under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e), which
applies to motions filed within 28 days of entry of the final
judgment. Grounds for reconsideration include: “(1) an
intervening change in the controlling law, (2) new evidence
previously unavailable, and (3) the need to correct clear
error or prevent manifest injustice.” Servants of
the Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir.
2000). A motion to reconsider is also “appropriate
where the court has misapprehended the facts, a party's
position, or the controlling law.” Id. See also
Barber ex rel. Barber v. Colo. Dep't of Revenue, 562
F.3d 1222, 1228 (10th Cir. 2009) (a motion to reconsider can
be granted when the Court errs with respect to the facts or
Amaro does not cite any new law or evidence, he alleges the
Court erred in a variety of ways. He contends:
The Court “ignored” the fact that the Ninth
Judicial District Court violated the rights of every prisoner
sentenced over a 32 year period;
The Court inappropriately treated the petition as a
“run of the mill” civil habeas matter instead of
applying Fed.R.Civ.P. 23 (addressing class action lawsuits);
The Court inappropriately focused on whether Amaro's
petition was timely, instead of looking at whether any class
member could submit a timely petition;
The Court applied “pretend rules” (i.e.,
28 U.S.C. §§ 2244 and 2254, which address the
timeliness of habeas petitions) in order to “callously
… affirm the state's wrongful convictions;”
The petition was timely based on the arguments previously
raised in the show-cause response (i.e.,
state-impediment to filing; ...