Reesman v. Haynes
ORDER DECLINING TO ADOPT REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS by Judge Benjamin H. Settle re 24 Objections to Report and Recommendation, filed by Joel Paul Reesman. **2 PAGE(S), PRINT ALL**(Joel Reesman, Prisoner ID: 316821)(TG)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
JOEL PAUL REESMAN,
CASE NO. C16-5925 BHS
ORDER DECLINING TO ADOPT
This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”)
of the Honorable Theresa L. Fricke, United States Magistrate Judge (Dkt. 23), and
Petitioner Joel Paul Ressman’s (“Reesman”) objections to the R&R (Dkt. 24).
On August 31, 2017, Judge Fricke issued the R&R recommending that the Court
dismiss the petition as time-barred. Dkt. 23. On September 11, 2017, Reesman filed
objections asserting numerous arguments, including that he is actually innocent. Dkt. 24
The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s
disposition that has been properly objected to. The district judge may accept, reject, or
ORDER - 1
modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the
magistrate judge with instructions. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).
In this case, Reesman’s actual innocence claim has not been fully briefed or
considered. Although the Government identified the claim in its motion to dismiss, it did
not address the actual innocence exception to the statute of limitations. See Dkt. 15.
Reesman raised the argument in his response, Dkt. 22 at 4–7, and the Government did not
file a reply. Thus, Reesman has raised an exception to a time-barred petition, which has
not been responded to or otherwise considered. Therefore, the Court DECLINES to
adopt the R&R and REMANDS for further consideration.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 19th day of October, 2017.
BENJAMIN H. SETTLE
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?