Colbert v. Bennett

Opinion

1 2

3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 BOBBY DARRELL COLBERT, CASE NO. 2:23-cv-1122 8 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 9 RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT v. 10 JASON BENNETT, 11 Respondent. 12 13 This matter comes before the Court on Petitioner Bobby Darrell Colbert’s 14 motion for relief from judgment. Dkt. No. 21. Having considered the motion, the 15 record, and the law, the Court DENIES Colbert’s motion for the reasons stated 16 below. 17 On April 23, 2024, the Court adopted the Honorable Michelle L. Peterson’s 18 Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), overruled Colbert’s objections to the R&R, 19 and dismissed Colbert’s petition for lack of jurisdiction. Dkt. Nos. 19, 20. 20 Specifically, the Court agreed with Judge Peterson’s finding that Colbert’s intended 21 habeas petition was successive under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b) and required Ninth 22 Circuit authorization. Dkt. No. 19 at 3. 23 1 Colbert now seeks to reopen his habeas case, arguing that the Court failed to 2 consider his objections de novo, and therefore, applied an incorrect legal standard.

3 Dkt. No. 21 at 2-3. 4 Under Rule 60(b)(4)—the rule that Colbert invokes—a final judgment is void 5 “only if the court that considered it lacked jurisdiction . . . or acted in a manner 6 inconsistent with due process.” United States v. Berke, 170 F.3d 882, 883 (9th Cir. 7 1999). Here, Colbert claims the Court failed to “review dispositive matters de novo 8 following [his] objections” and thus violated “not only . . . the Magistrates Act and

9 Habeas Rule 8(b), but also . . . Article III and the Due Process Clause of the 5th and 10 14th Amendment[s] to the United States Constitution.” Dkt. No. 21 at 2. 11 As explained by the Court in its prior Order, it reviewed and made “a de novo 12 determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or 13 recommendations to which objection [was] made” per 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Dkt. 14 No. 19 at 3. Further, “[n]one of Colbert’s objections address[ed] the fact that he 15 [was] seeking habeas relief related to the same criminal conviction” as his prior

16 petition nor did they “address the Court’s lack of jurisdiction to consider a second or 17 successive habeas petition until the Ninth Circuit has authorized its filing.” 18 Accordingly, the Court overruled Colbert’s objections, which instead focused on the 19 portion of the R&R striking Colbert’s motion for records, motion to appoint counsel, 20 and motion for judicial notice. See Dkt. No. 16 at 1-2. 21

22 23 1 The Court did not commit legal error and there is no reason that its judgment 2 is void. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Colbert’s motion for relief from judgment,

3 Dkt. No. 21, and this case remains closed. 4 5 Dated this 23rd day of October, 2024. 6 A 7 Jamal N. Whitehead 8 United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

22 23