1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 BRIAN KERRY O’KEEFE, Case No. 3:14-cv-00477-RCJ-CLB

4 Petitioner Order

5 v.

6 BRIAN E. WILLIAMS, et al.,

7 Respondents.

8

9 This court denied Brian Kerry O’Keefe’s habeas corpus petition on October 16, 2019, and 10 judgment was entered. (ECF Nos. 131, 132.) O’Keefe appealed, and the Ninth Circuit Court of 11 Appeals denied a certificate of appealability. (ECF Nos. 133, 136, 137.) O’Keefe moved for relief 12 from the judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) on October 7, 2020. (ECF No. 138.) This court 13 denied the motion. (ECF No. 146.) O’Keefe again moved for relief from the judgment under Fed. 14 R. Civ. P. 60(b) on August 30, 2021. (ECF Nos. 148, 149.) This court denied the motion on January 15 14, 2022. (ECF No. 151.) O’Keefe now moves (1) to alter or amend this court’s January 14, 2022, 16 order, and (2) for a default judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a) because the respondents failed to 17 respond to his motion to alter or amend this court’s order. (ECF Nos. 152, 153.) 18 First, regarding the latter motion, on April 29, 2021, this court granted the respondents’ 19 motion to be relieved from responding to O’Keefe’s pleadings unless a response is directed by this 20 court. (ECF No. 146 at 3-4.) This court did not direct a response to O’Keefe’s motion to alter or 21 amend this court’s January 14, 2022, order. As such, O’Keefe’s motion for a default judgment is 22 denied. 23 1 Second, regarding the former motion, O’ Keefe argues that this court should reconsider its 2|January 14, 2022, order in light of Borden vy. United States or, at least, grant a certificate of 3] appealability. (ECF No. 152 at 8.) As a reminder, O’Keefe previously alleged that a new rule of constitutional law was established in Borden, which applies retroactively and relates back to grounds 3, 4, and 5 of his petition. (ECF No. 149 at 1.) This court was not convinced that O’Keefe’s 6]| motion was a legitimate Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion; instead, it appeared to be a second or 7\| successive habeas corpus petition, which is proscribed under AEDPA. And even if O’Keefe’s motion was a legitimate Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6) motion, O’Keefe failed to demonstrate that 9|| Borden was applicable. See Borden vy. United States,

(2021) (holding that reckless offense cannot qualify as a “violent felony” under the Armed Career Criminal Act,

(e)). This court declines to reconsider its January 14, 2022, order, or grant a certificate 12|| of appealability. 13 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion to alter or amend a judgment [ECF No. 152] and motion for default judgment [ECF No. 153] are DENIED. 15 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, because reasonable jurists would not find this decision 16]| to be debatable or wrong, a certificate of appealability is DENIED. 17 DATED: May 9, 2022. 18 Lope co ROBERT € JONES 19 UNITED S#ATES DISTRICT JUDGE 20 21 22 23