Ramseyer v. Smelser

Filing 70

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)

Download PDF
HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 7 8 JIMMY LEROY RAMSEYER, CASE NO. C05-5006RBL 9 Petitioner, 10 11 ORDER v. DICK SMELSER, 12 Respondent. 13 14 15 THIS MATTER is before the Court on Petitioner Ramseyer’s “Motion for Extension of 16 Time to file Motion for Independent Action to Determine Validity of Washington’s Procedural 17 Bar Statute” [Dkt. #68]. Ramseyer asks the Court for an extension of time to file his Rule 60 18 Motion, and, if that is granted, to “reverse” the Washington Supreme Court’s order determining 19 that his state court Rule 60 motion was time-barred. He asks this Court to “remand” the case to 20 the Washington Supreme Court to “define the difference between jurisdictional rule and claim 21 processing rules.” Dkt. # 68 at 22]. 22 23 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 24 ORDER - 1 1 concedes that he has failed at each step. This habeas case was filed in 2005, and Ramseyer’s 2 Petition was denied more than ten years ago. [See Dkt. #s 49 and 51]. The Ninth Circuit 3 dismissed his appeal as moot because he was pursuing his claims in a different case. See Dkt. #s 4 64 and 65]. 5 The current Motion is both untimely and futile. This Court cannot “reverse” the 6 Washington Supreme Court, and it cannot “remand” this federal case to that Court with 7 “instructions” on how to resolve it. This Court cannot and will not review or reverse decisions 8 made in state court. The Rooker-Feldman doctrine precludes “cases brought by state-court losers 9 complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments . . . and inviting district court review and 10 rejection of those judgments.” Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 11 284, 125 S. Ct. 1517, 1521, 161 L. Ed. 2d 454 (2005). [W]hen a losing plaintiff in state court 12 brings a suit in federal district court asserting as legal wrongs the allegedly erroneous legal 13 rulings of the state court and seeks to vacate or set aside the judgment of that court, the federal 14 suit is a forbidden de facto appeal. Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003); Carmona 15 v. Carmona, 603 F.3d 1041, 1050 (9th Cir. 2008). 16 The Motion is DENIED. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 Dated this 15th day of November, 2017. 20 A 21 Ronald B. Leighton United States District Judge 19 22 23 24 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?