Watters v. Snohomish County et al
Filing
32
ORDER ADOPTING 27 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. The Court DISMISSES with prejudice Mr. Watters' amended habeas petition, Dkt. No. 6 , without an evidentiary hearing. The Court further DENIES a certificate of appealability. Signed by Judge Lauren King. **5 PAGE(S), PRINT ALL**(Dennis Watters, Prisoner ID: 371201)(LH)
Case 2:17-cv-00036-LK Document 32 Filed 10/11/22 Page 1 of 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE
8
9
10
11
DENNIS RICHARD WATTERS,
12
v.
13
RON HAYNES,
14
CASE NO. 17-CV-00036-LK
Petitioner,
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION
Respondent.
15
16
This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of United States
17
Magistrate Judge S. Kate Vaughan, Dkt. No. 27, and pro se Petitioner Dennis Richard Watters’
18
objections thereto, Dkt. No. 31. Having reviewed these documents and the remaining record, the
19
Court adopts the Report and Recommendation and dismisses Mr. Watters’ habeas petition with
20
prejudice.
21
I.
BACKGROUND
22
In October 2013, a Snohomish County jury convicted Mr. Watters of first-degree murder
23
and two counts of first-degree assault. See Dkt. No. 27 at 2–4; Dkt. No. 31 at 27. The superior
24
court imposed consecutive sentences totaling over 58 years in prison. Dkt. No. 31 at 29. For the
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION - 1
Case 2:17-cv-00036-LK Document 32 Filed 10/11/22 Page 2 of 5
1
better part of a decade, Mr. Watters appealed his convictions and sentences in state court. See Dkt.
2
No. 27 at 4–6 (detailing procedural history of state review). Although he filed his initial Section
3
2254 habeas petition in December 2016, 1 the Court stayed federal proceedings pending the
4
completion of state collateral review. Dkt. No. 12; Dkt. No. 27 at 6; see Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S.
5
269 (2005). The Court lifted the stay once the state process ran its course in December 2021. Dkt.
6
No. 27 at 6–7.
7
Mr. Watters’ amended petition raises the following claim for relief: “[i]nsufficient counsel,
8
[l]eading witnesses, [l]ies all of prosecutor[’]s witnesses, [l]ies from detectives[.]” Dkt. No. 6 at 5.
9
As for supporting facts, he states the following:
10
12
In charging me with murder 1st degree, and taking off the manslaughter 1st degree
was a double jeopardy clause, all the lies from state wittnesses, I sent you pages
and pages of lies from, Detective [B]iledve, and Detective Dunn, my lawyers not
following up on wittnesses that Detective Dunn and [B]iledve doing not one not 2
not 3 not 4 [b]ecause each interview was lies upon lies[.]
13
Id. Mr. Watters also attached several exhibits to his petition. These consist of case summaries;
14
synopses and commentary on allegedly inadmissible, false, or inconsistent trial testimony; copies
15
of documents already filed in this case; and emailed docket receipts from this case. See Dkt. Nos.
16
6-1–6-6. Following a detailed review of the record, Judge Vaughan concluded that Mr. Watters
17
failed to exhaust his ineffective assistance of counsel claim in state court and that it is now
18
procedurally defaulted. Dkt. No. 27 at 8–11; see Baldwin v. Reese, 541 U.S. 27, 29 (2004). Nor
19
did he establish the cause and prejudice necessary to excuse the procedural default. Dkt. No. 27 at
20
11–12; see Shinn v. Ramirez, 142 S. Ct. 1718, 1727–28 (2022). 2 Judge Vaughan thus found an
21
evidentiary hearing unnecessary and recommended denying a certificate of appealability. Dkt. No.
11
22
23
24
1
Mr. Watters filed his amended petition in February 2017. Dkt. No. 6.
Judge Vaughan also recommended dismissing any double jeopardy claim for failure to meet the pleading standards
of Habeas Corpus Rule 2(c), which requires a petitioner to “specify all the grounds for relief available to the
petitioner,” “state the facts supporting each ground,” and “state the relief requested[.]” See Dkt. No. 27 at 13; Mayle
v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644, 655 (2005) (Habeas Rule 2(c) “is more demanding” than Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)).
2
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION - 2
Case 2:17-cv-00036-LK Document 32 Filed 10/11/22 Page 3 of 5
1
27 at 13–14; see Schriro v. Landrigan, 550 U.S. 465, 474 (2007); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S.
2
322, 327 (2003).
II.
3
DISCUSSION
4
The Court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified
5
proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or
6
modify, in whole or in part, the recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C.
7
§ 636(b)(1); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (the Court “must determine de novo any part of the
8
magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to.”). As the statute and rule suggest,
9
the Court reviews findings and recommendations “if objection is made, but not otherwise.” United
10
States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc).
11
A.
Mr. Watters’ Objections are Untimely
12
Mr. Watters moved the Court for an extension of time to file objections after the 21-day
13
deadline set by Judge Vaughan passed. Dkt. No. 28 at 1; see Dkt. No. 27 at 14 (“Failure to file
14
objections within the specified time may affect your right to appeal.”). The Court nonetheless
15
granted the motion and ordered Mr. Watters to file his objections no later than August 29, 2022.
16
Dkt. No. 29 at 1. However, Mr. Watters again missed the deadline and filed his objections on
17
September 2, 2022, stating that he “ha[d] been trying to get th[em] e-filed [in] the district court
18
since the 29th [but] . . . had difficulties because [the] library ha[d] been closed or the library staff
19
ha[d] not been there[.]” Dkt. No. 31 at 1. Courts in this district typically strike untimely objections
20
even when the infracting party is a pro se litigant. Zayas v. Dep’t of Children Youth & Families,
21
No. C20-0981-JLR-TLF, 2021 WL 4126624, at 1 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 8, 2021); see also, e.g.,
22
Norling v. Uttecht, No. C19-5697-BHS, 2020 WL 42418, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 3, 2020)
23
(petitioner’s untimely objections constituted waiver); Hausken v. Lewis, No. C12-5882-BHS-JRC,
24
2014 WL 1912058, at *2 (W.D. Wash. May 12, 2014) (same).
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION - 3
Case 2:17-cv-00036-LK Document 32 Filed 10/11/22 Page 4 of 5
1
B.
Mr. Watters’ Objections are Meritless
2
Even so, Mr. Watters’ objections are a compilation of miscellaneous state court filings,
3
excerpts of police interview transcripts, and line-by-line commentary on trial transcripts similar to
4
or duplicative of the exhibits he submitted with his habeas petition—all unaccompanied by
5
explanation or supporting legal argument. Dkt. No. 31 at 2–129; see also Dkt. No. 28 at 2–60. Re-
6
submission of state court records and unexplained, contextless critiques of transcript excerpts do
7
not amount to proper objections. Mr. Watters does not articulate a proper objection or specify the
8
portion or portions of Judge Vaughan’s Report and Recommendation that he seeks to challenge.
9
The Court is not required to apply de novo review “when a party fails to direct [it] to a specific
10
error in the proposed findings and recommendations,” and “[a] mere recitation or summary of
11
arguments previously presented is not an ‘objection’ . . . since a valid ‘objection’ must put the
12
district court on notice of potential errors in the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation.”
13
Milam v. Dep’t of Corr., No. C20-0689-JCC, 2021 WL 1311230, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 8, 2021).
14
And nowhere does Mr. Watters address Judge Vaughan’s bases for dismissal, i.e., exhaustion and
15
procedural default. See Estrella v. Arend, No. C21-5835-BHS, 2022 WL 670899, at *1 (W.D.
16
Wash. Mar. 7, 2022) (“Estrella’s objections do not address the bases for the R&R, and they do not
17
require or warrant a different outcome.”). The Court has thoroughly examined the record and finds
18
no error in Judge Vaughan’s recommendation.
19
III.
CONCLUSION
20
The Court therefore ADOPTS Judge Vaughan’s Report and Recommendation, Dkt. No.
21
27, and DISMISSES with prejudice Mr. Watters’ amended habeas petition, Dkt. No. 6, without an
22
evidentiary hearing. The Court further DENIES a certificate of appealability. The Clerk is directed
23
to send uncertified copies of this Order to Mr. Watters at his last known address.
24
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION - 4
Case 2:17-cv-00036-LK Document 32 Filed 10/11/22 Page 5 of 5
1
2
3
4
Dated this 11th day of October, 2022.
A
Lauren King
United States District Judge
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION - 5
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?