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)

Download PDF
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

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?