Garvie v. Bennett

Opinion

HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES 1

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 10

11 EUGENE BRIAN GARVIE, CASE NO. 2:24-cv-00232-RAJ

12 Petitioner, ORDER

13 v.

14 JASON BENNETT,

15 Defendant. 16

17 THIS MATTER comes before the Court on several motions filed by pro se 18 Petitioner Eugene Brian Garvie (“Petitioner”), all of which are motions seeking relief from 19 judgment. Dkt. ## 44, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51. Three of these motions derive from the Court’s 20 denying Petitioner’s prior twelve motions seeking relief from judgment on numerous 21 grounds, which include, as pertinent to his instant motions: (1) a motion for request for 22 records; (2) a motion seeking an order that Respondent Jason Bennett (“Respondent”) must 23 answer the Petition; and (3) a motion to appoint counsel. Dkt. # 37 (emphasis added). 24 25 26 27 1 Additionally, Petitioner has filed motions requesting (1) an application of successive 2 analysis and (2) an application of jurisdictional analysis. Dkt. ## 48, 49, 50.1 3 On March 4, 2024, Petitioner filed his Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. Dkt. # 4 6. On April 17, 2024, this Court entered an order adopting the Report and 5 Recommendation of the Honorable Brian A. Tsuchida, dismissing this matter with 6 prejudice and denying a Certificate of Appealability. Dkt. ## 14, 15. This Court found 7 that the Petition, which challenged Petitioner’s 2007 criminal conviction in Snohomish 8 County, was time barred by the statute of limitations and was a second or successive request 9 for habeas relief from his state court judgment and sentence. Dkt. # 8 at 7. The Court also 10 noted that Petitioner previously brought an unsuccessful challenge to his judgment and 11 conviction in Garvie v. State of Washington, 2:18-cv-01371-JLR.2 Id. After this Court 12 dismissed the Petition with prejudice, Petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal to the Ninth 13 Circuit Court of Appeals. Dkt. # 16. The Ninth Circuit assigned Petitioner’s appeal a case 14 number, and on May 9, 2024, informed this Court that a Certificate of Appealability had 15 already been denied in April. See Garvie v. Bennett, No. 24-2965, Dkt. # 2. The Ninth 16 Circuit indicated that no briefing schedule would be set until the district court determined 17 whether it should issue a Certificate of Appealability. Dkt. # 17. 18 Petitioner proceeded to file seven substantially similar motions seeking relief from 19 judgment. Dkt. ## 20, 21, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28. In these motions, Petitioner argued that this 20 Court violated the Magistrate Act and Habeas Rule 8(b) by failing to conduct a de novo 21 review of the Request for Certification. Id. Petitioner also sought reconsideration of the 22 denial of the Certificate of Appealability. Id. Finally, Petitioner filed five other motions, 23 including (1) two motions for request of records, (2) a motion seeking an order that 24

25 1 Petitioner filed identical motions regarding his request for an application of jurisdictional analysis. Dkt. ## 49, 50. 26 2 In that matter, Petitioner filed an appeal, and the Ninth Circuit denied Petitioner’s request for a Certificate of Appealability, thereby dismissing the matter. 2:18-cv-01371-JLR, Dkt. 27 # 18. 1 Respondent must answer the Petition, and (3) a motion to appoint counsel. Dkt. ## 30, 31, 2 32, and 34. The Court denied the first seven motions, and denied the remaining motions 3 as moot because Petitioner’s habeas petition was time barred and a second or successive 4 petition. Dkt. # 37 at 2-3. 5 Petition then filed another Notice of Appeal. Dkt. # 38. The Ninth Circuit assigned 6 the same case number to this appeal. The Court assumes that the Ninth Circuit will not set 7 a briefing schedule until this Court determines whether it should issue a Certificate of 8 Appealability regarding its prior order denying Petitioner’s prior motions. 9 As a preliminary matter, the Court denies the three motions deriving from the 10 Court’s previous Order. These motions are (1) a motion to request records pursuant to 28 11 U.S.C. § 2250, (2) a motion seeking an order that Respondent must answer the Petition, 12 and (3) a motion to appoint counsel. Dkt. ## 44, 47, and 51. As he did in his prior motions, 13 Petitioner posits that this Court violated the Magistrate Act and Habeas Rule 8(b) by failing 14 to conduct a de novo review in its Order denying these motions. See id. Petitioner’s 15 motions do not address the substance or reasoning of the Report & Recommendation the 16 Court considered in issuing its Order. Additionally, these motions also appear duplicative 17 of Petitioner’s prior surfeit of motions, and even if the Court were to fashion them as 18 motions for reconsideration, Petition fails to address the standard for reconsideration. 19 Next, and in duplicative motions, Petitioner requests an application of 20 “jurisdictional analysis” to reopen habeas proceedings. Dkt. ## 49, 50. Petitioner offers 21 no specifics as to what sort of analysis he wishes the Court to conduct. Moreover, the 22 Court will not, and by law cannot, engage in such a practice, because Petitioner’s habeas 23 petition is time barred and a second or success petition. For similar reasons, the Court also 24 denies Petitioner’s request for an application of “successive analysis,” as this is akin to 25 reopening habeas proceedings. 26 Finally, Petitioner is not entitled to a Certificate of Appealability, as he has not 27 demonstrated, other than in a conclusory statement, that “jurists of reason could disagree 1 with the district court’s resolution of his constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude 2 the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El 3 v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 327 (2003). 4 For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner’s Motions for Relief from Judgment are 5 DENIED. Dkt. ## 44, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51. The Clerk is instructed not to accept any further 6 filings in this case. 7 8 Dated this 13th day of November, 2024.

10 A 11

12 The Honorable Richard A. Jones 13 United States District Judge 14

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27