Carr v. State of Washington

Filing 42

ORDER denying Petitioner's 36 Motion for Reconsideration and denying as moot Petitioner's 39 Motion requesting response. The Court will not accept any further filings in this closed case. Signed by Judge Richard A. Jones. **3 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 “Motion for Reconsideration of 16 the Order Denying Petitioner’s Motions (Dkt. # 32, 33) and Declining to Order a 17 Certificate of Appealability (Dkt. # 34) Signed by the Honorable Richard A. Jones,” 18 (“Motion for Reconsideration”), and Petitioner’s “Motion Requesting That the Court 19 Respond to, in a Timely Manner, the Motion for Reconsideration” (“Motion Requesting 20 Response”). Dkt. ## 36, 39. For the following reasons, the Court DENIES both 21 motions. 22 Petitioner Peter James Carr (“Carr” or “Petitioner”) initially filed his Petition for a 23 Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Dkt. ## 1, 6, 9. The Court referred 24 the petition to Magistrate Judge Mary Alice Theiler. After reviewing the record, the 25 Court adopted Judge Theiler’s Report and Recommendation denying Petitioner Carr’s § 26 2254 petition, dismissed it with prejudice, and declined to issue a certificate of 27 appealability. Dkt. # 30. The Clerk entered judgment and closed the case. Dkt. # 31. 28 ORDER – 1 1 Petitioner then moved for reconsideration and to issue a certificate of 2 appealability. Dkt. ## 32, 33, 34. The Court denied Petitioner’s motions and declined, 3 again, to issue a certificate of appealability. Dkt. # 35. Petitioner then filed the present 4 Motion for Reconsideration to request reconsideration of the Court’s Order denying 5 Petitioner’s first motion for reconsideration. Dkt. # 36. Petitioner also appealed this 6 Court’s Order adopting Judge Theiler’s R&R, but this appeal was dismissed in December 7 2018 due to failure to prosecute. Dkt. ## 37, 40. Petitioner also filed a Motion 8 Requesting Response that the Court respond to Petitioner’s second Motion for 9 Reconsideration. Dkt. # 39. 10 The standard the Court applies is the same as it was for Petitioner’s previous 11 motion for reconsideration. Motions for reconsideration are disfavored and will be 12 granted only upon a “showing of manifest error in the prior ruling” or “new facts or legal 13 authority which could not have been brought to [the court’s] attention earlier with 14 reasonable diligence.” Local Rule W.D. Wash. 7(h)(1). 15 Petitioner’s new Motion for Reconsideration, which contains no new evidence, 16 again restates the same grounds already considered and rejected. Dkt. # 36. As the Court 17 observed in its previous Order, Petitioner again relies most strongly on his “alibi” and 18 insufficiency of the evidence defenses that were already fully briefed in earlier filings, 19 and fully addressed by Judge Theiler in her Report and Recommendation. See Dkt. # 35. 20 Petitioner has presented nothing to the Court that suffices to show error, or any other 21 reason to revisit its previous determinations. The Court will not entertain any further 22 attempts to change the Court’s rulings via repetitive motions for reconsideration, given 23 that this case has been closed for some time and Petitioner has consistently failed to 24 identify any proper basis for relief. 25 26 27 28 ORDER – 2 1 Accordingly, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. # 2 36) and DENIES AS MOOT Petitioner’s Motion Requesting Response (Dkt. # 39). The 3 Court will not accept any further filings in this closed case. 4 5 DATED this 11th day of March, 2019. 7 A 8 The Honorable Richard A. Jones United States District Judge 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDER – 3

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?