Carr v. State of Washington

Filing 35

ORDER denying Petitioner's Motions (Dkt. ## 32 , 33 ), and DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability (Dkt. # 34 ). Signed by Judge Richard A. Jones. **2 PAGE(S), PRINT ALL**(Peter Carr, Prisoner ID: 357101) (TH)

1

HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES

2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

8
9

PETER JAMES CARR,

10

Petitioner,

11
12

v.

Case No. C17-1326 RAJ
ORDER

RONALD HAYNES,

13

Respondent.

14
15

This matter comes before the Court on Petitioner’s Motions to “Object to the

16

Order Dismissing Federal Habeas Action,” (Dkt. ## 32, 33), and Petitioner’s “Motion to

17

Move Court to Grant the Relief of a Certificate of Appealability” (Dkt. # 34). Petitioner

18

Peter James Carr (“Carr” or “Petitioner”) initially filed his Petition for a Writ of Habeas

19

Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Dkt. ## 1, 6, 9. The Court referred the petition to

20

Magistrate Judge Mary Alice Theiler. After reviewing the record, the Court adopted

21

Judge Theiler’s Report and Recommendation denying Petitioner Carr’s § 2254 petition,

22

dismissed it with prejudice, and declined to issue a certificate of appealability. Dkt. # 30.

23

Although Petitioner does not provide the relevant legal authority, the Court

24

construes Petitioner’s Motions, collectively, as a motion for reconsideration. Motions for

25

reconsideration are disfavored and will be granted only upon a “showing of manifest

26

error in the prior ruling” or “new facts or legal authority which could not have been

27

brought to [the court’s] attention earlier with reasonable diligence.” Local R. W.D.

28

ORDER – 1

1

Wash. 7(h)(1). Petitioner’s new objections, which contain no new evidence, largely

2

reflect the same insufficiency of evidence already considered and rejected. Dkt. ## 32,

3

33. Petitioner relies most strongly on his “alibi” defense that was already fully briefed in

4

earlier filings, and addressed by Judge Theiler in her Report and Recommendation. Dkt.

5

# 32 at 13, 25; Dkt. # 33 at 6-7. As Judge Theiler stated, the jury already heard this

6

evidence and was entitled to believe M.L.’s testimony identifying Petitioner as the man

7

who touched her. Dkt. # 28 at 9. The Court sees no reason to revisit Judge Theiler’s

8

well-reasoned findings.

9

Petitioner also moves for a certificate of appealability, which the Court already

10

determined it would not issue. Dkt. ## 30, 34. The Court see no reason to change its

11

decision. A district court may issue a certificate of appealability only if the “applicant

12

has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right” and specified the

13

issues on appeal. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)-(3). A petitioner satisfies this standard “by

14

demonstrating that jurists of reason could disagree with the district court’s resolution of

15

his constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate

16

to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327

17

(2003). Here, the dismissal of Petitioner’s habeas claim does not warrant a certificate of

18

appealability. As reflected in opinions by this Court, Judge Theiler, and the Washington

19

State Court of Appeals, Petitioner Carr has not identified any issue in his petition upon

20

which reasonable jurists could differ.

21
22

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s Motions (Dkt. ## 32, 33), and
DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability (Dkt. # 34).

23
24

DATED this 31st day of August, 2018.

26

A

27

The Honorable Richard A. Jones
United States District Judge

25

28

ORDER – 2