Dudley v. Maricopa Jail

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c); ARCAP 28(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE DAMIAN DUDLEY, ) ) Petitioner/Appellant, ) ) v. ) ) MARICOPA COUNTY FOURTH AVENUE ) JAIL COMMANDER, ) ) Respondent/Appellee. ) __________________________________) DIVISION ONE FILED: 01-28-2010 PHILIP G. URRY,CLERK BY: DN 1 CA-CV 09-0096 DEPARTMENT D MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 28, Arizona Rule of Civil Appellate Procedure) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. LC2008-000076-001 DT The Honorable Douglas L. Rayes, Judge AFFIRMED Damian Dudley Appellant in propria persona Phoenix Iafrate & Associates By Michele M. Iafrate Attorneys for Appellee Phoenix O R O Z C O, Judge ¶1 Damian Dudley (Appellant) appeals from the trial court s December 17, 2008 Minute Entry that denied his request to vacate the court s May 8, 2008 Minute Entry.1 For the reasons that follow, we affirm the trial court s December 17, 2008 Minute Entry. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ¶2 While Appellant was incarcerated on January 2, 2008, a fight of approximately twenty-five to thirty inmates broke out. Based on Appellant s alleged involvement in the fight, a disciplinary action report (DAR) was issued for Appellant. As a result full of the DAR, Appellant received fifteen days of restriction and fifteen days in disciplinary segregation. On January 7, 2008, Appellant appealed the disciplinary decision to the Jail Commander, who denied his appeal. Appellant then filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, which the trial court treated as a petition for special action. ¶3 hearing incident On May 1, 2008, the trial court held an evidentiary (Evidentiary and Hearing) resulting Evidentiary Hearing. regarding DAR. the Appellant January testified 2, at 2008 the On May 8, 2008, the trial court issued a 1 Appellant references the May 6, 2008 Minute Entry throughout his briefs. The trial court s minute entry is dated May 6, 2008, but was electronically filed May 8, 2008. For purposes of this decision, we refer to the document as the May 8, 2008 Minute Entry. Additionally, Appellant s notice of appeal is from the trial court s December 17, 2008 Minute Entry. However, the trial court s December 17, 2008 Minute Entry was not signed, see infra n.2. It was subsequently signed and electronically filed on April 22, 2009. For purposes of this decision, we refer to the document as the December 17, 2008 Minute Entry. 2 signed minute entry ruling that dismissed Appellant s special action and denied the requested relief. Appellant filed a notice of appeal to this Court on July 25, 2008. On October 1, 2008, this Court dismissed the appeal as untimely pursuant to Arizona Rule of Civil Appellate Procedure 9(a) and (b). Appellant contended that he never received a copy of the trial court s May 8, 2008 Minute Entry. Our order dismissing Appellant s appeal suggested that he may file a request in the superior court to vacate the May 8 order and re-enter it on the ground he did not receive it. ¶4 On October 6, 2008, Appellant filed a request with the trial court to vacate and re-enter the May 8, 2008 Minute Entry on the ground that he did not receive a copy. In an unsigned minute entry dated December 17, 2008, the trial court denied Appellant s request. On January 6, 2009, Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal to this Court from the December 17, 2008 Minute Entry. As the December 17, 2008 Minute Entry did not comply with Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 58(a),2 on March 23, 2009, this Court issued an order pursuant to Eaton Fruit Co. v. California Spray-Chemical Corp., 2 102 Ariz. 129, 426 P.2d 397 The trial court s December 17, 2008 Minute Entry was not signed. In part, Rule 58(a) states: all judgments shall be in writing and signed by a judge or a court commissioner duly authorized to do so. Additionally, unless otherwise specified, hereafter, an Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure is referred to as Rule ___. 3 (1967), suspending the appeal. On April 22, 2009, the trial court filed a signed order that complied with Rule 58(a). ¶5 We have Statutes (A.R.S.) jurisdiction sections pursuant 12-2101.B to (2003) Arizona and Revised -120.21.A.1 (2003). DISCUSSION ¶6 Appellant argues the December 17, 2008 Minute Entry should be vacated to allow the normal appeal time frame to run so that Appellant Specifically, may Appellant appeal on contends the the merits trial of court his case. abused its discretion by refusing to vacate the May 8, 2008 Minute Entry pursuant to Rule 60(c)(6).3 Appellant s argument is essentially that he is entitled to a delayed appeal. ¶7 We review a trial court s ruling on a motion for relief from an order pursuant to Rule 60(c) for an abuse of discretion. State ex rel. Indus. Com n v. Word, 221 Ariz. 283, 286, ¶ 11, 211 P.3d 1267, 1270 (App. 2009). An appellate court will affirm the decision of the trial court where any reasonable view of the facts and law might support the judgment of the trial court. 3 Preliminarily, we note that Appellant did not cite Rule 60(c)(6) in either his Request to Vacate Order and Re-Enter It or in his Reply to Respondent s Response to Petitioner s Request to Vacate Order and Re-Enter It. However, we understand both documents to request Rule 60(c) relief and address the issue accordingly. Additionally, Appellee neither pointed this out below or on appeal, nor does Appellee allege any prejudice because of Appellant s failure to cite Rule 60(c). 4 City of Phoenix v. Geyler, 144 Ariz. 323, 330, 697 P.2d 1073, 1080 (1985). [O]n appeal from denial of Rule 60(c) relief, the trial will court circumstances be require sustained a unless contrary undisputed ruling[.] facts Id. and (quoting Coconino Pulp and Paper Co. v. Marvin, 83 Ariz. 117, 121, 317 P.2d 550, 552 (1957)). ¶8 When a party moves for Rule 60(c) relief to extend the time for an appeal, the party must demonstrate it has met the factors our supreme court adopted in Geyler. Haroutunian v. Valueoptions, Inc., 218 Ariz. 541, 549, ¶ 20, 189 P.3d 1114, 1122 (App. 2008); see Geyler, 144 Ariz. at 328, 697 P.2d at 1078. party must demonstrate: (1) that it did not timely The receive notice that the judgment had been entered; (2) that it promptly filed a motion after actually receiving such notice; (3) that it exercised due diligence, or had a reason for the lack thereof, in attempting to learn the date of the decision; and (4) that no party would be prejudiced. Haroutunian, 218 Ariz. at 549, ¶ 20, 189 P.3d at 1122. ¶9 2008 In denying Appellant s request to vacate the May 8, Minute Entry and re-enter it, the trial court explicitly address each of the four Geyler elements. did not In its December 17, 2008 Minute Entry, the court simply stated [t]he Court has considered [Appellant s] Request to Vacate Order and Re-Enter It, Respondent s Response and [Appellant s] Reply. 5 IT IS ORDERED denying [Appellant s] Request to Vacate Order and ReEnter It. 4 The record in this case demonstrates that there was no abuse of discretion when the trial court denied Appellant s request for Rule 60(c) relief. ¶10 The first Geyler factor is absence of notice of the entry of judgment. 144 Ariz. at 332, 697 P.2d at 1082. In this case, the May 8, 2008 Minute Entry, which was the final judgment, was electronically filed on May 8, 2008. Appellant contends he did not receive a copy of the May 8, 2008 Minute Entry. However, Appellee counters that the electronically generated copy must have been delivered to Appellant because all other minute entries in the case presumably were received distributed those in minute similar entries. fashion, and he Appellee further asserts the May 8, 2008 Minute Entry contained Appellant s name, booking number and was routed to him through inter-office mail to the jail. We defer to the trial court s resolution of disputed questions of fact or credibility where, as is the case here, there decision. is support in the record for the trial Geyler, 144 Ariz. at 329, 697 P.2d at 1079. court s We find the trial court did not abuse its discretion as it could have properly found Appellant received 4 notice of the May 8, 2008 Trial judges are generally not required to give reasons for discretionary rulings. Geyler, 144 Ariz. at 329 n.3, 697 P.2d at 1079 n.3. However, some explanation assists in the review of a case on appeal. Id. 6 Minute Entry. In finding that Appellant received notice of the minute entry, he cannot meet the remaining Geyler factors. ¶11 In addition to satisfying the Geyler factors, an appellant seeking relief must meet more stringent standards than those of extraordinary, Rule or 60(c) by compelling relief to be granted. showing some circumstances in unique, order for Geyler, 144 Ariz. at 328, 697 P.2d at 1078 ( The party seeking delayed appeal must, therefore, not only make the showing generally required for relief under Rule 60(c), but must also meet the more stringent standards of Rodgers v. Watt. ) (Emphasis added.) Appellant has failed to allege or present evidence any regarding compelling, unique, or extraordinary circumstances that should be considered when determining whether Rule 60(c) relief is appropriate. Appellant simply states that the trial court s May 8, 2008 Minute Entry should be vacated to permit him to appeal on the merits. ¶12 We conclude that Appellant could not meet the Geyler factors required for Rule 60(c) relief. Additionally, Appellant did not present any extraordinary, unique, or compelling reasons justifying relief. therefore, the trial Appellant has not met his burden and, court did not abuse its denying Appellant s request for a delayed appeal. 7 discretion in CONCLUSION ¶13 order For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court s denying Appellant s request to vacate the May 8, 2008 Minute Entry and re-enter it. /s/ ___________________________________ PATRICIA A. OROZCO, Presiding Judge CONCURRING: /s/ ____________________________________ DIANE M. JOHNSEN, Judge /s/ ____________________________________ JON W. THOMPSON, Judge 8

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.