Contreras-Rebollar v. Key

Filing 67

ORDER signed by Judge Benjamin H. Settle denying 63 Motion for Reconsideration.**2 PAGE(S), PRINT ALL**(Adrian Contreras-Rebollar, Prisoner ID: 819639)(TG)

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

6
7
8

ADRIAN CONTRERAS-REBOLLAR,
Petitioner,

9

v.

10

CASE NO. C15-5471 BHS
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S
MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION

JAMES KEY,

11

Respondent.

12
13

This matter comes before the Court on Petitioner Adrian Contreras-Rebollar’s

14

(“Petitioner”) motion for reconsideration of order adopting report and recommendation

15

(Dkt. 63).

16

On January 1, 2017, the Court denied relief on ground 2 of Petitioner’s petition for

17

writ of habeas corpus and dismissed grounds 3 and 4 without prejudice because these

18

grounds were unexhausted. Dkt. 49. In relevant part, Petitioner “elect[ed] to voluntarily

19

delete the two unexhausted claims in question.” Dkt. 36 at 1. On August 25, 2017, the

20

Court denied relief of ground 1 of the petition and ordered the Clerk to close the case.

21

Dkt. 61. On September 6, 2017, Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration. Dkt. 63.

22

ORDER - 1

1

Petitioner contends that, during the additional consideration of ground 1, he has

2

exhausted his claims for relief on grounds 3 and 4. Id.

3

On September 12, 2017, the Court requested additional briefing and renoted

4

Petitioner’s motion. Dkt. 64. On September 19, 2017, Respondent responded. Dkt. 65.

5

On September 28, 2017, Petitioner replied. Dkt. 66.

6

In this case, Petitioner has failed to show that he exhausted his claims during the

7

additional consideration of the petition. In his reply, Petitioner essentially drops his

8

argument that he exhausted the claims during this proceeding and argues that he

9

exhausted before he filed this federal petition. Dkt. 66. These arguments should have

10

been presented earlier in this matter instead of agreeing with the Government that his

11

claims were unexhausted. Dkt. 36 at 1. Therefore, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s

12

motion for reconsideration. For purposes of an appeal, the Court concludes that any

13

appeal of this order would be frivolous.

14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15

Dated this 11th day of October, 2017.

A

16
17

BENJAMIN H. SETTLE
United States District Judge

18
19
20
21
22

ORDER - 2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

ORDER - 3