Manuel v. Bennett

Filing 30

ORDER signed by Judge Richard A. Jones. The Court DENIES the pending 27 29 Motions. The Clerk is INSTRUCTED not to accept any further filings in this case **2 PAGE(S), PRINT ALL**(Rene Manuel, Prisoner ID: 759310)(MIH)

1

HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES

2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

9
10

RENE DEWAYNE MANUEL,

11

v.

12

CASE NO. 3:24-cv-05412-RAJ-DWC

Petitioner,

ORDER

JASON BENNETT,

13
14

Respondent.

15

I.

16

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on pro se Petitioner Rene Dewayne Manuel

17
18
19
20

INTRODUCTION

(“Petitioner”)’s Motions for Relief from Judgment. Dkts. ## 27, 29. The Court issued an
Order denying four similar motions on November 15, 2024, and reincorporates the facts as
presented in that Order. See Dkt. # 28.
II.

DISCUSSION

21

Petitioner challenges the judgment for being procedural defective pursuant to Gonzalez

22

v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524 (2005). 1 See Dkts. ## 27, 29. He further asserts that the Court

23

Petitioner makes a typographical error in his citation to this case, highlighting his
carelessness in filing this series of motions.

24

1

ORDER - 1

1

violated the Magistrate Act and Habeas Rule 8(b) by failing to conduct de novo review of

2

his Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing. Dkt. # 27 at 1. Petitioner also claims this Court

3

“asserted a procedural defense not made by respondent.” Dkt. # 29 at 1.

4

To the extent Petitioner challenges de novo review of any motion filed before the

5

Court adopted the Report, the Court properly considered all pleadings. See Dkt. # 14 at 1-

6
7
8

2. Furthermore, the Court did not “assert a procedural defense not made by respondent.”
See Dkt. # 29 at 1.
Petitioner has consistently taken advantage of valuable judicial resources by filing
a surfeit of meritless motions. He also appears to disregard prior orders. None of the

9

motions alters the uncontested fact that the habeas petition filed in this case is time-barred.

10

The Court will not consider any further filings from Petitioner.
III.

11
12
13
14
15

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES the pending motions. Dkts. ## 27,
29. The Clerk is INSTRUCTED not to accept any further filings in this case.
Dated this 25th day of November, 2024.

16

A

17

The Honorable Richard A. Jones
United States District Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
ORDER - 2