Ramseyer v. Smelser
ORDER denying 68 Motion for Extension of Time; signed by Judge Ronald B. Leighton.**2 PAGE(S), PRINT ALL**(Jimmy Ramseyer, Prisoner ID: 769468)(DN)
HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
JIMMY LEROY RAMSEYER,
CASE NO. C05-5006RBL
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Petitioner Ramseyer’s “Motion for Extension of
Time to file Motion for Independent Action to Determine Validity of Washington’s Procedural
Bar Statute” [Dkt. #68]. Ramseyer asks the Court for an extension of time to file his Rule 60
Motion, and, if that is granted, to “reverse” the Washington Supreme Court’s order determining
that his state court Rule 60 motion was time-barred. He asks this Court to “remand” the case to
the Washington Supreme Court to “define the difference between jurisdictional rule and claim
processing rules.” Dkt. # 68 at 22].
Ramseyer’s 38 page motion is a re-hash of the 1997 jury trial that led to his conviction
for murder. By his own count, Ramseyer has filed five petitions for post-trial relief, and he
ORDER - 1
concedes that he has failed at each step. This habeas case was filed in 2005, and Ramseyer’s
Petition was denied more than ten years ago. [See Dkt. #s 49 and 51]. The Ninth Circuit
dismissed his appeal as moot because he was pursuing his claims in a different case. See Dkt. #s
64 and 65].
The current Motion is both untimely and futile. This Court cannot “reverse” the
Washington Supreme Court, and it cannot “remand” this federal case to that Court with
“instructions” on how to resolve it. This Court cannot and will not review or reverse decisions
made in state court. The Rooker-Feldman doctrine precludes “cases brought by state-court losers
complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments . . . and inviting district court review and
rejection of those judgments.” Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280,
284, 125 S. Ct. 1517, 1521, 161 L. Ed. 2d 454 (2005). [W]hen a losing plaintiff in state court
brings a suit in federal district court asserting as legal wrongs the allegedly erroneous legal
rulings of the state court and seeks to vacate or set aside the judgment of that court, the federal
suit is a forbidden de facto appeal. Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003); Carmona
v. Carmona, 603 F.3d 1041, 1050 (9th Cir. 2008).
The Motion is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 15th day of November, 2017.
Ronald B. Leighton
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?