Colbert v. Bennett

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: January 2, 2025
• Docket: 2:24-cv-01439
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 9 10 BOBBY D. COLBERT, CASE NO. 2:24-cv-01439-DGE- 11 Petitioner, SKV 12 v. ORDER ON MOTION FOR RELIEF 13 JASON BENNETT, FROM JUDGMENT/JUDICIAL NOTICE 14 Respondent. 15

16 This matter comes before the Court on Petitioner’s Motion for Relief From Order/Motion 17 to Take Judicial Notice. (Dkt. No. 13.) On October 15, 2024, after Petitioner failed to object, 18 this Court adopted the Report and Recommendation (R&R) of Magistrate Judge S. Kate 19 Vaughan and dismissed this matter without prejudice. (Dkt. No. 11.) 20 Petitioner filed the present motion under Rule 60(b)(4). (Id.) Rule 60(b)(4) “applies only 21 in the rare instance where a judgment is premised either on a certain type of jurisdictional error 22 or on a violation of due process that deprives a party of notice or the opportunity to be heard.” 23 24 1 United Student Aid Funds, Inc. v. Espinosa, 559 U.S. 260, 271 (2010) (internal citations 2 omitted). 3 Petitioner’s motion (Dkt. No. 11) requests this court “vacate the Order Granting 4 Application to Proceed In forma Pauperis as void order entered in violation of the Magistrate Act

5 and the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment[.]” (Dkt. No. 11 at 1.) Petitioner 6 argues Judge Vaughan did not have the authority to enter a final judgment on the motion to 7 proceed in forma pauperis because the matter was not referred to her and the parties did not 8 consent to the magistrate judge. (Id. at 2.) However, the Court by general order has referred to 9 the Magistrate Judges all applications to proceed in forma pauperis. See W.D. Wash. General 10 Order 12-24 para. 6 (Oct. 08, 2024) (modifying General Order 11-22). And, “it is well settled 11 that a magistrate judge may grant a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, but ‘has no authority to 12 issue a dispositive order denying in forma pauperis status absent compliance with section 13 636(c).’” Smith v. Officer Sergent, No. 215CV0979GEBDBP, 2016 WL 6875892, at *1 (E.D. 14 Cal. Nov. 21, 2016) (quoting Tripati v. Rison, 847 F.2d 548, 549 (9th Cir. 1988)).

15 Here, Judge Vaughan granted Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, thus, the 16 magistrate judge acted within the confines of her authority. As such, Petitioner fails to show that 17 the judgment is void because the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, lacked jurisdiction over 18 the parties, or acted in a matter inconsistent with due process that deprived a party of notice or 19 the opportunity to be heard. Espinosa, 558 U.S. at 270–71. Accordingly, Petitioner is not 20 entitled to relief under Rule 60(b)(4). 21 Petitioner’s motion for relief from judgment and request for judicial notice is denied. 22 Dated this 2nd day of January, 2025. 23

24 1 A 2 David G. Estudillo 3 United States District Judge

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24