Gossett v. Bennett

Opinion

1 HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES

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

10 MARK JONATHAN GOSSETT, 11 CASE NO. 3:24-cv-5408 Petitioner, 12 v. ORDER 13 JASON BENNETT, 14 Respondent. 15 I. INTRODUCTION THIS MATTER comes before the Court on pro se prisoner petitioner Mark Jonathan 16 Gossett’s motions for relief from judgment. Dkts. # 18-20, 23-26.1 On August 21, 2024, 17 the Court adopted the Report and Recommendation of S. Kate Vaughan, United States 18 Magistrate Judge (“R&R”). See Dkts. # 4, 15. The Court dismissed Mr. Gossett’s petition 19 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(a), as it constituted an unauthorized second or successive 20 petition and denied a Certificate of Appealability. Mr. Gossett has since appealed. Dkts. 21 # 21-22. 22

23 1 The court exercises its discretion to decide the motion before the October 18, 2024 noting date of the most recently filed Motion, Dkt. # 26. 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 II. DISCUSSION 2 Mr. Gossett’s motions for relief from judgment, are difficult to follow, and do not 3 address the substance of the R&R or the reasoning behind it. Petitioner challenges the 4 judgment for not applying successive analysis pursuant to Sanders v. United States, 373 5 U.S. 1 (1963), finality analysis pursuant to Gospel Army v. Los Angeles, 331 U.S. 543 (1947), and a retroactivity analysis pursuant to Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989). See 6 Dkts. # 18, 19, 23. Petitioner asserts the Court violated the Magistrate Act and Habeas 7 Rule 4 and 8(b) by recharacterizing petition’s claim as a under § 2254. See Dkt. # 20. 8 Petitioner asserts that the Court violated the Magistrate Act and Habeas Rule 8(b) by failing 9 to conduct de novo review of his petition and subsequent motions. See Dkts. # 24-26. 10 Petitioner does not address the authority under which his motion is made, Federal 11 Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4), and he does not address the standard for a motion for reconsideration. To the extent Mr. Gossett challenges de novo review of his motions filed 12 before the Court adopted the R&R, the Court properly considered the motions and 13 construed them as objections to the R&R. See Dkt. # 15 at 1 n.1. 14 III. CONCLUSION 15 The Court’s judgment is not void, and Mr. Gossett is not entitled to a Certificate of 16 Appealability, because his habeas petition is plainly a second or successive petition. 17 Accordingly, the Court DENIES the pending motions. Dkts. # 18-20, 23-26. The case 18 remains closed. DATED this 8th day of October, 2024. 19

A 20

21 The Honorable Richard A. Jones 22 United States District Judge 23 24