Gossett v. Bennett

Opinion

1 2 3

4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE 9 MARK JONATHAN GOSSETT, CASE NO. 3:24-cv-05131-RAJ-GJL 10 Petitioner, 11 v. ORDER JASON BENNETT, 12 Respondent. 13 14 15

16 THIS MATTER is before the Court on pro se prisoner petitioner Mark Jonathan 17 Gossett’s motions and supporting memorandum for relief from judgment. Dkts. # 39-43.1 18 On August 21, 2024, the Court adopted Magistrate Judge Leupold’s Report & Recommendation, dismissed Gossett’s § 2254 habeas petition as time barred, and denied a 19 Certificate of Appealability. Dkt. # 37. 20 Mr. Gossett’s motions for relief from judgment, like his objections to the Report & 21 Recommendation, are difficult to follow, and do not address the substance of the report or 22

23 1 The court exercises its discretion to decide the motion before the October 10, 2024 noting date of the most recently filed Motion, Dkt. # 43. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 (directing district courts to administer the rules of procedure “to secure 24 the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding”). 1 the reasoning behind it. Mr. Gossett asks the Court to apply the retroactive analysis set 2 forth in Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989). Dkt. # 39 at 1. Further, Mr. Gossett appears 3 to also challenge the court’s de novo review of issues including a motion to suppress, 4 application of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d), and motion for discovery pursuant to Brady. See Dkts. 5 # 40, 41, 43. Petitioner also asserts the doctrine of judicial estoppel as a basis for relief from judgment. See Dkt. # 42. Mr. Gossett also seeks reconsideration of the denial of a 6 Certificate of Appealability in various filings. See Dkt. # 39 at 2; Dkt. # 40 at 2; Dkt. # 41 7 at 2; Dkt. # 43 at 2. 8 Mr. Gossett does not address the authority under which his motion is made, Federal 9 Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4) (“the judgment is void”), and he does not address the 10 standard for a motion for reconsideration. Petitioner provides no factual or legal basis for 11 this request to apply the retroactive analysis set forth in Teague. The Court properly conducted review of the motions in this matter and construed them as objections to the 12 Magistrate’s Report & Recommendation. See Dkt. # 36 at 1 n.1. The Court’s judgment is 13 not void, and Mr. Gossett is not entitled to a Certificate of Appealability, because his habeas 14 petition is plainly time barred. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s Motion for 15 Relief from Judgment. Dkts. # 39-41, 43.

17 DATED this 1st day of October, 2024. 18

19 A

20 The Honorable Richard A. Jones 21 United States District Judge 22

23 24