Curran v. Uttecht

W.D. Washington

Curran v. Uttecht

District Court, W.D. Washington·Decided October 7, 2019·No. 3:19-cv-05381·Unknown

Opinion

1 2

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 7 SETH JAMES CURRAN, CASE NO. C19-5381 BHS 8 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT 9 v. AND RECOMMENDATION 10 JEFFREY A. UTTECHT, 11 Respondent. 12

13 This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) 14 of the Honorable David W. Christel, United States Magistrate Judge, Dkt. 18, Petitioner 15 Seth James Curran’s (“Curran”) objections to the R&R, Dkts. 19, 20, and Curran’s 16 motion to compel, Dkt. 21. 17 On July 31, 2019, Judge Christel issued the R&R recommending that the Court 18 dismiss Curran’s petition without prejudice for failure to exhaust. Dkt. 18. On August 19 11 and 14, 2019, Curran filed objections. Dkts. 19, 20. On August 27, 2019, Curran 20 filed a motion to compel. Dkt. 22. 21 The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s 22 disposition that has been properly objected to. The district judge may accept, reject, or 1 modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the 2 magistrate judge with instructions. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).

3 In this case, Curran contests the well-settled and binding precedent that he must 4 exhaust his state court remedies before seeking relief in a federal habeas petition. Dkt. 5 17. Curran’s argument do not persuade the Court to carve out an exception to “one of the 6 pillars of federal habeas corpus jurisprudence.” Calderon v. U.S. Dist. Court for N. Dist. 7 of California, 134 F.3d 981, 984 (9th Cir. 1998). Curran’s motion to compel is similarly 8 frivolous. Therefore, the Court having considered the R&R, Curran’s objections, and the

9 remaining record, does hereby find and order as follows: 10 (1) The R&R is ADOPTED; 11 (2) Curran’s petition is DISMISSED without prejudice; 12 (3) Curran’s motion to compel, Dkt. 21, is DENIED; 13 (4) A Certificate of Appealability is DENIED; and

14 (5) The Clerk shall enter a JUDGMENT and close the case. 15 Dated this 7th day of October, 2019. A 16 17 BENJAMIN H. SETTLE 18 United States District Judge

19 20 21 22

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 7 SETH JAMES CURRAN, CASE NO. C19-5381 BHS 8 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT 9 v. AND RECOMMENDATION 10 JEFFREY A. UTTECHT, 11 Respondent. 12

13 This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) 14 of the Honorable David W. Christel, United States Magistrate Judge, Dkt. 18, Petitioner 15 Seth James Curran’s (“Curran”) objections to the R&R, Dkts. 19, 20, and Curran’s 16 motion to compel, Dkt. 21. 17 On July 31, 2019, Judge Christel issued the R&R recommending that the Court 18 dismiss Curran’s petition without prejudice for failure to exhaust. Dkt. 18. On August 19 11 and 14, 2019, Curran filed objections. Dkts. 19, 20. On August 27, 2019, Curran 20 filed a motion to compel. Dkt. 22. 21 The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s 22 disposition that has been properly objected to. The district judge may accept, reject, or 1 modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the 2 magistrate judge with instructions. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).

3 In this case, Curran contests the well-settled and binding precedent that he must 4 exhaust his state court remedies before seeking relief in a federal habeas petition. Dkt. 5 17. Curran’s argument do not persuade the Court to carve out an exception to “one of the 6 pillars of federal habeas corpus jurisprudence.” Calderon v. U.S. Dist. Court for N. Dist. 7 of California, 134 F.3d 981, 984 (9th Cir. 1998). Curran’s motion to compel is similarly 8 frivolous. Therefore, the Court having considered the R&R, Curran’s objections, and the

9 remaining record, does hereby find and order as follows: 10 (1) The R&R is ADOPTED; 11 (2) Curran’s petition is DISMISSED without prejudice; 12 (3) Curran’s motion to compel, Dkt. 21, is DENIED; 13 (4) A Certificate of Appealability is DENIED; and

14 (5) The Clerk shall enter a JUDGMENT and close the case. 15 Dated this 7th day of October, 2019. A 16 17 BENJAMIN H. SETTLE 18 United States District Judge

19 20 21 22

Curran v. Uttecht, (W.D. Wash. 2019).

Pincite

Curran v. Uttecht (Curran v. Uttecht) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.