Gossett v. Bennett

Opinion

1 2 3

4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 7 MARK J GOSSETT, Case No. 3:24-cv-05491-TMC 8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RELIEF 9 FROM JUDGMENT v. 10 JASON BENNETT, 11 Defendant. 12 13

14 I. ORDER 15 Before the Court is Plaintiff Mark Gossett’s Motion for Relief from Judgment (Dkt. 20). 16 Having reviewed the motion, the letter to the Court on the motion (Dkt. 22), the supplement to 17 the motion (Dkt. 24), and the remaining record, the Court DENIES the motion. 18 On August 13, 2024, the Court dismissed Mr. Gossett’s action and federal habeas petition 19 without prejudice in its order adopting the Report and Recommendation of U.S. Magistrate 20 Judge Grady Leupold and its subsequent judgment. Dkt. 16 at 2; Dkt. 17. The Court reasoned 21 that the proposed habeas petition was duplicative of another habeas petition before the Court. Id. 22 Mr. Gossett argues that he is entitled to relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil 23 Procedure 60(b)(4). Dkt. 20 at 1. Rule 60(b)(4) provides that “[o]n motion and just terms, the 24 1 court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding” 2 because “the judgment is void.” 3 Mr. Gossett fails to show how the judgment satisfies Rule 60(b)(4). He argues that the

4 Court “fail[ed] to conduct de novo review” of his affidavit in support of his habeas petition. 5 Dkt. 20 at 1–2. But the Court conducted de novo review, as stated in its August 13, 2024 order. 6 Dkt. 16 at 1 (“The Court has conducted de novo review of the Report and Recommendation 7 based on Mr. Gossett’s objections.”); Dkt. 16 at 1–2 (“This Court has conducted an independent 8 review of the record . . . .”). In doing so, it reviewed the Report and Recommendation, 9 Mr. Gossett’s objections, and the remaining record, including Mr. Gossett’s habeas petition. See 10 id. 11 Mr. Gossett also argues that the Court should re-open his habeas proceedings because it 12 failed to apply Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000). Dkt. 20 at 2. But because the Court

13 dismissed his action on the grounds that it was duplicative of another, it was not proper to reach 14 the merits of his claims. See Dkt. 16 at 1–2. The Court thus DENIES Mr. Gossett’s motion for 15 relief from judgment. 16 II. CONCLUSION The Court ORDERS as follows: 17 18 • The Court DENIES Mr. Gossett’s motion for relief from judgment (Dkt. 20). 19 • The Court DENIES all of Mr. Gossett’s other proposed motions (Dkt. 18, 19, 21, 20 25) as moot. 21 • The Court DENIES Mr. Gossett’s request for a certificate of appealability 22 (Dkt. 20 at 2). 23 The Clerk is directed to send uncertified copies of this Order to all counsel of record and 24 to any party appearing pro se at said party’s last known address. 1 Dated this 9th day of September, 2024. 2 A 3 Tiffany M. Cartwright 4 United States District Judge

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