Carr v. State of Washington
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)
HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
PETER JAMES CARR,
Case No. C17-1326 RAJ
This matter comes before the Court on Petitioner’s Motions to “Object to the
Order Dismissing Federal Habeas Action,” (Dkt. ## 32, 33), and Petitioner’s “Motion to
Move Court to Grant the Relief of a Certificate of Appealability” (Dkt. # 34). Petitioner
Peter James Carr (“Carr” or “Petitioner”) initially filed his Petition for a Writ of Habeas
Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Dkt. ## 1, 6, 9. The Court referred the petition to
Magistrate Judge Mary Alice Theiler. After reviewing the record, the Court adopted
Judge Theiler’s Report and Recommendation denying Petitioner Carr’s § 2254 petition,
dismissed it with prejudice, and declined to issue a certificate of appealability. Dkt. # 30.
Although Petitioner does not provide the relevant legal authority, the Court
construes Petitioner’s Motions, collectively, as a motion for reconsideration. Motions for
reconsideration are disfavored and will be granted only upon a “showing of manifest
error in the prior ruling” or “new facts or legal authority which could not have been
brought to [the court’s] attention earlier with reasonable diligence.” Local R. W.D.
ORDER – 1
Wash. 7(h)(1). Petitioner’s new objections, which contain no new evidence, largely
reflect the same insufficiency of evidence already considered and rejected. Dkt. ## 32,
33. Petitioner relies most strongly on his “alibi” defense that was already fully briefed in
earlier filings, and addressed by Judge Theiler in her Report and Recommendation. Dkt.
# 32 at 13, 25; Dkt. # 33 at 6-7. As Judge Theiler stated, the jury already heard this
evidence and was entitled to believe M.L.’s testimony identifying Petitioner as the man
who touched her. Dkt. # 28 at 9. The Court sees no reason to revisit Judge Theiler’s
Petitioner also moves for a certificate of appealability, which the Court already
determined it would not issue. Dkt. ## 30, 34. The Court see no reason to change its
decision. A district court may issue a certificate of appealability only if the “applicant
has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right” and specified the
issues on appeal. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)-(3). A petitioner satisfies this standard “by
demonstrating that jurists of reason could disagree with the district court’s resolution of
his constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate
to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327
(2003). Here, the dismissal of Petitioner’s habeas claim does not warrant a certificate of
appealability. As reflected in opinions by this Court, Judge Theiler, and the Washington
State Court of Appeals, Petitioner Carr has not identified any issue in his petition upon
which reasonable jurists could differ.
Accordingly, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s Motions (Dkt. ## 32, 33), and
DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability (Dkt. # 34).
DATED this 31st day of August, 2018.
The Honorable Richard A. Jones
United States District Judge
ORDER – 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?