Beggs v. Mason

Opinion

1 2 FILED IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT 3 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON Jun 10, 2024 4 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 9 FORREST ARTHUR BEGGS, 10 1:24-cv-03002-SAB Petitioner, 11 v. ORDER DENYING 12 OBJECTIONS

13 DEAN MASON, 14 Respondent. 15

16 17 On April 29, 2024, the Court dismissed Petitioner Forrest Arthur Beggs’ 18 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus with prejudice. ECF No. 11. The Court 19 concluded that Petitioner had failed to demonstrate that his Petition was timely 20 filed on January 11, 2024. Id. at 2–4. Petitioner then filed “Objections to Judge’s 21 Report Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b),” ECF No. 13. On June 4, 2024, Petitioner filed a 22 Notice of Appeal. ECF No. 14. 23 Petitioner is proceeding pro se. The filing fee was paid. Respondent was not 24 served. Petitioner’s Objections were considered without oral argument on the date 25 signed below. 26 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72 concerns the pretrial orders of Magistrate 27 Judges. As such, this rule does not apply to a final dispositive order of a U.S. 28 District Court Judge. 1 It appears that Petitioner is asking this Court to reconsider the decision 2 dismissing his habeas petition. “[A] motion for reconsideration should not be 3 granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented 4 with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening 5 change in the controlling law.” 389 Orange St. Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 6 665 (9th Cir.1999). A motion for reconsideration “may not be used to raise 7 arguments or present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have 8 been raised earlier in the litigation.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 9 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). Thus, a party seeking reconsideration must show 10 more than a disagreement with the Court’s decision or restatements of arguments 11 that were already considered by the Court in rendering its decision. 12 Here, Petitioner has not met this burden. Petitioner now asserts that he was 13 sentenced on October 28, 2022, ECF No. 13 at 5. Nevertheless, the Felony 14 Judgment and Sentence, attached to his Response to the Order to Show Cause, has 15 a file date of October 28, 2021. ECF No. 9-1 at 2–7. Consequently, Petitioner’s 16 assertion is not well taken. 17 Petitioner has not provided newly discovered evidence, nor has he shown 18 there was an intervening change in the controlling law. Rather, it appears Petitioner 19 disagrees with the Court’s decision and continues to make arguments that were 20 already considered by the Court. 21 // 22 // 23 // 24 // 25 // 26 // 27 // 28 // 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. Petitioner’s “Objections to Judge’s Report Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b),” ECF No. 13, is DENIED. 2. The Court certifies that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), an 5|| appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith and there is no basis upon which to issue a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). A certificate of appealability is therefore DENIED. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk’s Office is directed to enter this Order 9)| and provide copies to Petitioner at his last known address. 10 DATED this 10th day of June 2024. 11 12 13 : Shockey ec toar Stanley A. Bastian 16 Chief United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28