Koh v. United States of America

Filing 25

MINUTE ORDER striking as procedurally improper Petitioner's 24 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Ricardo S. Martinez. (PM) cc: Petitioner via first class mail

1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

6
7
8

CASE NO. C18-684 RSM

JUNNE KOH,

9

Petitioner,

10

MINUTE ORDER

v.

11
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

12

Respondent.

13
14
15
16

The following MINUTE ORDER is made by direction of the Court, the Honorable
Ricardo S. Martinez, Chief United States District Judge:

17
18
19
20

This matter is before the Court on Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration. Dkt. #24.
Finding the request untimely, not substantively warranted, and that this Court lacks jurisdiction,
the Court strikes the Motion for Reconsideration.

21

On April 25, 2019, this Court issued its Order Denying Petitioner’s Motion Under 28

22

U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody.

23

Dkt. #20. On June 4, 2019, the Clerk docketed a Notice of Appeal and Motion for a COA.1

24

Dkt. #22. On June 24, 2019, this Court received a letter from Petitioner. Dkt. #24. While unclear

25
26
27

1

Certificate of Appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253.

MINUTE ORDER – 1

1
2

as to its purpose,2 the Court construes the filing as a request for reconsideration. Petitioner’s
Motion, however, suffers from three fatal deficiencies.

3

Procedurally, a motion for reconsideration “shall be filed within fourteen days after the

4

order to which it relates is filed.” LCR 7(h)(2). Petitioner filed his Motion more than fourteen

5
6

days after the Court’s April 25, 2019 Order. Dkt. #20. The Court accordingly strikes the Motion
as untimely.

7
Substantively, “[m]otions for reconsideration are disfavored.” LCR 7(h)(1). The Court

8
9

will “ordinarily deny such motions in the absence of a showing of manifest error in the prior

10

ruling or a showing of new facts or legal authority which could not have been brought to [the

11

Court’s] attention earlier with reasonable diligence.” LCR 7(h)(1). Petitioner’s Motion does not

12

demonstrate any error in the Court’s earlier ruling. In fact, the Motion merely repeats the same

13

arguments that the Court has already rejected. Were the Motion timely, the Court would deny it.

14

Finally, this Court lacks jurisdiction. Petitioner has appealed to the United States Court

15
16

of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Dkt. #22. That appeal has been docketed by the Ninth Circuit

17

and is currently pending. United States v. Koh, No. 19-35492 (9th Cir. 2019). Upon docketing

18

of the appeal, this Court no longer has jurisdiction over the matter. See FED. R. APP. P. 42; Griggs

19

v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982) (“[t]he filing of a notice of appeal

20

is an event of jurisdictional significance—it confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals and

21
22
23

divests the district court of its control”); FED. R. CIV. P. 62.1. Even if it were timely and
substantively warranted, the Court would be unable to grant the relief requested.

24
25
26
27

2

The letter confusingly requests the Court’s assistance in a deferral of removal case before the
Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals and twice indicates that it requests reconsideration. Dkt. #24
at 1.

MINUTE ORDER – 2

1

Accordingly, and for all these reasons, the Court STRIKES Petitioner’s Motion for

2

Reconsideration (Dkt. #24) as procedurally improper. The Clerk of the Court is directed to

3

forward a copy of this Minute Order to Petitioner.

4

Dated this 27th day of June 2019.

5

WILLIAM McCOOL, Clerk

6

By: /s/ Paula McNabb
Deputy Clerk

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
MINUTE ORDER – 3