Verkler v. United States of America

Filing 22

MINUTE ORDER denying Petitioner's 21 Motion for Default Judgment authorized by U.S. District Judge John C Coughenour. (TH) (cc: Petitioner via USPS)

Case 2:17-cv-01876-JCC Document 22 Filed 05/29/20 Page 1 of 2

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9

GEORGE VERKLER,

10
11

Petitioner,

CASE NO. C17-1876-JCC
MINUTE ORDER

v.

12

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

13

Respondent.

14
15
16
17

The following minute order is made by direction of the Court, the Honorable John C.
Coughenour, United States District Judge:
This matter comes before the Court on Petitioner’s motion for default judgment (Dkt. No.

18

21.) On August 4, 2015, the Court sentenced Petitioner to 48 months in custody after he pleaded

19

guilty to two counts of theft of public funds and two counts of aggravated identity theft. (Dkt.

20

No. 1 at 1.) The Ninth Circuit dismissed Petitioner’s direct appeal based on the waiver included

21

in his plea agreement. United States v. Verkler, Case No. CR15-0041-JCC, Dkt. Nos. 17 at 15

22

(W.D. Wash. 2015). Petitioner then filed a second appeal of the Court’s rulings on various post-

23

conviction motions, which the Ninth Circuit dismissed in part as untimely and denied in part as

24

meritless. Id., Dkt. No. 76 at 2. Petitioner subsequently filed a § 2255 motion on December 14,

25

2017, raising nineteen grounds for relief. (Dkt. No. 1.) The Court dismissed fourteen grounds

26

and ordered service and a response to the remaining five. (Dkt. No. 5.) After receiving the
MINUTE ORDER
C17-1876-JCC
PAGE - 1

Case 2:17-cv-01876-JCC Document 22 Filed 05/29/20 Page 2 of 2

1

Government’s response, the Court dismissed Petitioner’s remaining five grounds for relief on

2

June 7, 2018, and entered judgment against Petitioner on June 15, 2018. (Dkt. Nos. 11–12.) Nine

3

months later, Petitioner tried to appeal the dismissal by filing a motion spanning 372 pages. (Dkt.

4

No. 16.) The Court explained that Petitioner could not appeal the dismissal without a certificate

5

of appealability. (Dkt. No. 18 at 1.) The Court therefore construed the appeal as an application

6

for a certificate of appealability, which the Court denied. (Id. at 1–2.)

7

Now, almost two years since the Court dismissed this action, Petitioner has again filed a

8

motion spanning hundreds of pages in which Petitioner rehashes many of the same arguments

9

that the Ninth Circuit and the Court have previously rejected. (See Dkt. No. 21 at 1–64.) The

10

Court rejects those arguments for the same reasons that it rejected them before. (See Dkt. No. 18

11

at 1–2.) The motion (Dkt. No. 21) is DENIED.

12

DATED this 29th day of May 2020.

13

William M. McCool
Clerk of Court

14

s/Tomas Hernandez
Deputy Clerk

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
MINUTE ORDER
C17-1876-JCC
PAGE - 2