Yates v. Sinclair

Filing 51

ORDER by Judge Ricardo S. Martinez denying 49 Motion for Reconsideration filed by Robert Lee Yates.(SSM)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 6 7 8 ROBERT LEE YATES, JR., 9 10 Petitioner, v. 11 STEPHEN D. SINCLAIR, 12 Respondent. 13 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. C13-0842RSM ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION CAPITAL CASE 14 15 THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration of 16 this Court’s prior Order denying discovery related to his fair cross-section claim. Dkt. #49. 17 “Motions for reconsideration are disfavored.” LCR 7(h). “The court will ordinarily deny such 18 motions in the absence of a showing of manifest error in the prior ruling or a showing of new 19 facts or legal authority which could not have been brought to its attention earlier with 20 21 reasonable diligence.” LCR 7(h)(1). In this case, Petitioner has failed to address this standard. 22 Instead, he essentially re-argues the same facts and legal authority already considered by the 23 Court. Petitioner does not appear to raise any new facts or legal authority which could not have 24 been brought to the Court’s attention earlier without reasonable diligence. See Dkt. #49. As a 25 result, the Court has construed the motion as one asserting manifest error. 26 27 Having reviewed Petitioner’s motion, the Court finds no manifest error with its prior 28 ruling. Petitioner appears to misconstrue this Court’s reasoning in its prior Order. He asserts ORDER PAGE - 1 1 that the Court denied the request on the basis that his counsel “could have and should have said 2 more about underrepresentation” with respect to his individual jury. Dkt. #49 at 6. However, 3 that was not the Court’s reasoning. Rather, the Court explained how a petitioner is to establish 4 a prima facie violation of the fair cross-section requirement, dkt. #48 at 3-4 (citing Duren v. 5 Missouri, 439 U.S. 357, 364-66, 99 S. Ct. 664, 58 L. Ed. 2d 579 (1979), and then provided a 6 7 summary of the evidence that had been presented to the State court when seeking discovery on 8 this claim. The Court then noted that Petitioner’s counsel’s Declaration, which had been 9 devoid of any statistical evidence to support her request for discovery in the State court, had not 10 been sufficient to raise a prima facie claim of a fair cross-section violation. Id. at 4-6. The 11 Court concluded that Petitioner’s failure to produce the same basic statistical information – i.e., 12 13 the representation of the groups he believes are underrepresented in the Pierce County 14 community, where jury pools are drawn from in Pierce County, etc. – did not support his 15 request for discovery in this Court. Id. The Court makes no mention of any failure to provide 16 information about the individual jury in his case. 17 18 Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to meet the standard in LCR 19 7(h)(1), declines to revisit its decision denying Petitioner discovery on his fair cross-section 20 claim, and DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. #49). 21 DATED this 19th day of August 2016. 22 A 23 24 RICARDO S. MARTINEZ CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 25 26 27 28 ORDER PAGE - 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?