Gossett v. Bennett

Opinion

1 2 3

4 5

6 7 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 12 13 MARK J GOSSETT, Case No. 3:24-cv-05501-TMC 14 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT 15 v. 16 JASON BENNETT, 17 Respondent. 18

19 I. ORDER 20 Before the Court is Petitioner Mark J. Gossett’s second motion for relief from judgment. 21 Dkt. 20. After reviewing the motion and the remaining record, the Court DENIES the motion. 22 On August 13, 2024, the Court dismissed Mr. Gossett’s federal habeas petition without 23 prejudice in its order adopting the Report and Recommendation of U.S. Magistrate Judge David 24 1 W. Christel. Dkt. 15. The Court agreed with Judge Christel that Mr. Gossett’s petition should be 2 dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction as a second or successive petition. Id. at 2. 3 The Court entered judgment the same day. Dkt. 16. On September 27, 2024, the Court denied

4 Mr. Gossett’s first motion for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5 60(b)(4), which argued that the judgment was void because the Court had characterized his 6 habeas petition as one brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Dkt. 18. 7 Mr. Gossett has now moved again for relief under Rule 60(b)(4), which allows the Court 8 to grant relief from a final judgment if “the judgment is void.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4). The 9 Court will consider the merits of Mr. Gossett’s motion because it attacks an alleged defect in the 10 integrity of his habeas proceedings and is not itself a disguised second or successive habeas 11 petition. See Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 530–33 (2005); United States v. Washington, 12 653 F.3d 1057, 1063 (9th Cir. 2011).

13 Mr. Gossett argues that the judgment is void because the Court failed to apply “the 14 successive analysis set forth in Sanders v. United States, 373 U.S. 1, 83 S. Ct. 1068 (1963).” 15 Dkt. 20 at 1. This argument is unpersuasive. The Magistrate Judge correctly applied, and this 16 Court adopted, the standard for determining whether a habeas petition is second or successive 17 under 28 U.S.C. § 2244. And even if Mr. Gossett’s argument had merit, “a judgment is not void 18 merely because it is erroneous.” In re Center Wholesale, Inc., 759 F.2d 1440, 1448 (9th Cir. 19 1985). A judgment is void for purposes of Rule 60(b)(4) “only if the court that considered it 20 lacked jurisdiction, either as to the subject matter of the dispute or over the parties to be bound, 21 or acted in a manner inconsistent with due process of law.” United States v. Berke, 170 F.3d 882, 22 883 (9th Cir. 1999). Mr. Gossett’s argument does not meet this standard.

23 II. CONCLUSION 24 l For the reasons explained above, the Court DENIES the motion for relief from judgment 2 (Dkt. 20). The Court also DENIES a certificate of appealability. 3 Dated this 8 day of November, 2024. fg KE 5 Tiffany. Cartwright United States District Judge 6 7 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24