Hayes v. Morgan

Filing 31

ORDER denying 30 Motion for Reconsideration by U.S. District Judge John C Coughenour.**3 PAGE(S), PRINT ALL**(Donald Hayes, Prisoner ID: 766385)(SSM)

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9

DONALD C. HAYES,

10

Petitioner,

MINUTE ORDER

v.

11
12

CASE NO. C16-0803-JCC

MARGARET GILBERT,

13

Respondent.

14
15
16
17

The following Minute Order is made by direction of the Court, the Honorable John C.
Coughenour, United States District Judge:
This matter comes before the Court on Petitioner Donald C. Hayes’s motion for

18

reconsideration (Dkt. No. 30) of this Court’s order (Dkt. No. 27) adopting the report and

19

recommendation issued by the Honorable Mary Alice Theiler, United States Magistrate Judge

20

(Dkt. No. 22).

21

Motions for reconsideration are generally disfavored. W.D. Wash. Local Civ. R. 7(h)(1).

22

Reconsideration is appropriate only if there is “manifest error in the prior ruling or a showing of

23

new facts or legal authority which could not have been brought to [the Court’s] attention earlier

24

with reasonable diligence.” Id. “Motions for reconsideration are not the place for parties to make

25

new arguments or to ask the Court to rethink what it has already thought.” Richard v. Kelsey,

26

2009 WL 3762844 at *1 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 9, 2009).

MINUTE ORDER C16-0803-JCC
PAGE - 1

1

Mr. Hayes’s motion does not meet the standards set forth in Rule 7(h). He largely

2

rehashes the argument he previously presented—i.e., that reinstatement of his DOSA would

3

release him from total confinement. (Dkt. No. 30 at 2-4.) But the Court rejected this argument

4

after finding that Mr. Hayes would still be liable for his new convictions even if his claims of

5

improper treatment were valid. (Dkt. No. 27 at 1.) Mr. Hayes has shown no reason to challenge

6

this finding.

7

Mr. Hayes also argues—for the first time on reconsideration—that, under Wash. Rev.

8

Code §§ 9.94A.633 and 9.94A.737, he cannot be sanctioned for more than 30 days for acquiring

9

new felony convictions. (Dkt. No. 30 at 7.) Mr. Hayes waived this argument by not raising it

10

previously. See Richard, 2009 WL 3762844 at *1. (“Motions for reconsideration are not the

11

place for parties to make new arguments.”). Moreover, the statutes cited do not shield Mr. Hayes

12

from the consequences of new convictions. Rather, they outline possible sanctions for people

13

who violate the terms of their community custody. In other words, the sanctions Mr. Hayes could

14

have received for violating the terms of his DOSA are different than the sentences he received

15

for his new convictions.

16

Finally, Mr. Hayes’s motion was untimely. Motions for reconsideration “shall be filed

17

within fourteen days after the order to which it relates is filed.” W.D. Wash. Local Civ. R.

18

7(h)(2). The Court may dismiss motions that are filed past this deadline. Id. This Court denied

19

Mr. Hayes’s habeas petition on January 13, 2017. Accordingly, Mr. Hayes had until January 27,

20

2017 to file a timely motion. Mr. Hayes did not file his motion until January 30, 2017.

21

In sum, although the Court is sympathetic to Mr. Hayes, habeas relief is not the

22

appropriate remedy for his grievances. The motion for reconsideration (Dkt. No. 30) is DENIED.

23

The Clerk is DIRECTED to send a copy of this order to Mr. Hayes.

24

//

25

//

26

//

MINUTE ORDER C16-0803-JCC
PAGE - 2

1

DATED this 10th day of February 2017.

2

William M. McCool
Clerk of Court

3

s/Paula McNabb
Deputy Clerk

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

MINUTE ORDER C16-0803-JCC
PAGE - 3