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-05501-TMC 8 Petitioner, THIRD ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR 9 RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT v. 10 JASON BENNETT, 11 Respondent. 12 13
14 I. ORDER 15 Before the Court are three motions for relief from judgment filed by Petitioner Mark J. 16 Gossett. Dkt. 28, 29, 32. The Court has reviewed all three motions and the remaining record. For 17 the reasons explained below, all three motions are DENIED. Additionally, because Mr. Gossett 18 has repeatedly filed frivolous motions, the Court ORDERS Mr. Gossett to show cause by March 19 17, 2025 why he should not be sanctioned under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. 20 On August 13, 2024, the Court dismissed Mr. Gossett’s federal habeas petition without 21 prejudice in its order adopting the Report and Recommendation of U.S. Magistrate Judge David 22 W. Christel. Dkt. 15. The Court agreed with Judge Christel that Mr. Gossett’s petition should be 23 dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction as a second or successive petition. Id. at 2. 24 The Court entered judgment the same day. Dkt. 16. On September 27, 2024, the Court denied 1 Mr. Gossett’s first motion for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 2 60(b)(4), which argued that the judgment was void because the Court had characterized his 3 habeas petition as one brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Dkt. 18. On November 8, 2024, the
4 Court entered another order denying Mr. Gossett’s second motion for relief from judgment. 5 Dkt. 25. 6 Mr. Gossett appealed both the dismissal of his habeas petition and the denial of his post- 7 judgment motions. Dkt. 19, 21. On December 23, 2024, the Ninth Circuit affirmed this Court by 8 denying Mr. Gossett a certificate of appealability, concluding that he had not shown that “jurists 9 of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a 10 constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court 11 was correct in its procedural ruling.” Dkt. 27. 12 Still, Mr. Gossett has persisted in filing three more motions for relief from judgment.
13 Dkt. 28, 29, 32. Two of those motions again seek relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 14 60(b)(4), which allows the Court to grant relief from a final judgment if “the judgment is void.” 15 Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4). “[A] judgment is not void merely because it is erroneous.” In re Center 16 Wholesale, Inc., 759 F.2d 1440, 1448 (9th Cir. 1985). A judgment is void for purposes of Rule 17 60(b)(4) “only if the court that considered it lacked jurisdiction, either as to the subject matter of 18 the dispute or over the parties to be bound, or acted in a manner inconsistent with due process of 19 law.” United States v. Berke, 170 F.3d 882, 883 (9th Cir. 1999). 20 The third motion seeks relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(3), which 21 allows the Court to grant relief for “fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), 22 misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3). “To prevail,
23 the moving party must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the verdict was obtained 24 through fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct and the conduct complained of prevented 1 the losing party from fully and fairly presenting the defense.” De Saracho v. Custom Food 2 Machinery, Inc., 206 F.3d 874, 880 (9th Cir. 2000). 3 The Court will address the merits of Mr. Gossett’s motions because they attack alleged
4 defects in the integrity of his habeas proceedings and are not themselves disguised second or 5 successive habeas petitions. See Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 530–33 (2005); United States 6 v. Washington, 653 F.3d 1057, 1063 (9th Cir. 2011). Because the motions are frivolous, 7 however, the Court will also order Mr. Gossett to show cause why he should not be sanctioned 8 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. 9 A. Dkt. 28 10 The motion filed at Dkt. 28 argues that the Court should vacate its November 8, 2024 11 order denying Mr. Gossett’s second motion for relief from judgment. The motion argues that 12 order is void “based upon the Court’s procedural failure to conduct de novo review of
13 jurisdiction challenge.” Dkt. 28 at 1. But this Court has conducted de novo review throughout 14 Mr. Gossett’s habeas proceeding and post-judgment motions, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed this 15 Court’s decisions by denying Mr. Gossett a certificate of appealability. Dkt. 27. This motion is 16 frivolous. 17 B. Dkt. 29 18 The motion filed at Dkt. 29 claims that the judgment is void because the U.S. Magistrate 19 Judge violated 28 U.S.C. § 636 by entering final judgment without Mr. Gossett’s consent. But 20 that is not true. The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation as authorized by 28 21 U.S.C. § 636(b), and the undersigned Article III judge conducted de novo review, dismissed 22 Mr. Gossett’s habeas petition, and entered judgment. Dkt. 15. This motion is also frivolous.
23 24 1 C. Dkt. 32 2 In Dkt. 32, Mr. Gossett appears to argue that the Magistrate Judge and District Judge 3 engaged in a fraudulent scheme by dismissing his habeas petition without ordering that the
4 original state court record be produced. But this Court dismissed Mr. Gossett’s petition based on 5 a threshold procedural issue—that his action was a second or successive habeas petition filed 6 without authorization from the Court of Appeals. Dkt. 15 at 1–2. The Court’s decision has 7 already been affirmed on appeal. Dkt. 27. This motion is also frivolous. 8 D. Sanctions Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 9 Although Mr. Gossett brings these motions pro se, he remains bound by the Federal 10 Rules of Civil Procedure, like any other litigant. Rule 11 expressly provides that it applies to “a 11 party personally if the party is unrepresented.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a). Under Rule 11, by signing a 12 motion, an unrepresented party certifies to the Court that “the claims, defenses, and other legal
13 contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, 14 modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(2).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
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-05501-TMC 8 Petitioner, THIRD ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR 9 RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT v. 10 JASON BENNETT, 11 Respondent. 12 13
14 I. ORDER 15 Before the Court are three motions for relief from judgment filed by Petitioner Mark J. 16 Gossett. Dkt. 28, 29, 32. The Court has reviewed all three motions and the remaining record. For 17 the reasons explained below, all three motions are DENIED. Additionally, because Mr. Gossett 18 has repeatedly filed frivolous motions, the Court ORDERS Mr. Gossett to show cause by March 19 17, 2025 why he should not be sanctioned under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. 20 On August 13, 2024, the Court dismissed Mr. Gossett’s federal habeas petition without 21 prejudice in its order adopting the Report and Recommendation of U.S. Magistrate Judge David 22 W. Christel. Dkt. 15. The Court agreed with Judge Christel that Mr. Gossett’s petition should be 23 dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction as a second or successive petition. Id. at 2. 24 The Court entered judgment the same day. Dkt. 16. On September 27, 2024, the Court denied 1 Mr. Gossett’s first motion for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 2 60(b)(4), which argued that the judgment was void because the Court had characterized his 3 habeas petition as one brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Dkt. 18. On November 8, 2024, the
4 Court entered another order denying Mr. Gossett’s second motion for relief from judgment. 5 Dkt. 25. 6 Mr. Gossett appealed both the dismissal of his habeas petition and the denial of his post- 7 judgment motions. Dkt. 19, 21. On December 23, 2024, the Ninth Circuit affirmed this Court by 8 denying Mr. Gossett a certificate of appealability, concluding that he had not shown that “jurists 9 of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a 10 constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court 11 was correct in its procedural ruling.” Dkt. 27. 12 Still, Mr. Gossett has persisted in filing three more motions for relief from judgment.
13 Dkt. 28, 29, 32. Two of those motions again seek relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 14 60(b)(4), which allows the Court to grant relief from a final judgment if “the judgment is void.” 15 Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4). “[A] judgment is not void merely because it is erroneous.” In re Center 16 Wholesale, Inc., 759 F.2d 1440, 1448 (9th Cir. 1985). A judgment is void for purposes of Rule 17 60(b)(4) “only if the court that considered it lacked jurisdiction, either as to the subject matter of 18 the dispute or over the parties to be bound, or acted in a manner inconsistent with due process of 19 law.” United States v. Berke, 170 F.3d 882, 883 (9th Cir. 1999). 20 The third motion seeks relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(3), which 21 allows the Court to grant relief for “fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), 22 misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3). “To prevail,
23 the moving party must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the verdict was obtained 24 through fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct and the conduct complained of prevented 1 the losing party from fully and fairly presenting the defense.” De Saracho v. Custom Food 2 Machinery, Inc., 206 F.3d 874, 880 (9th Cir. 2000). 3 The Court will address the merits of Mr. Gossett’s motions because they attack alleged
4 defects in the integrity of his habeas proceedings and are not themselves disguised second or 5 successive habeas petitions. See Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 530–33 (2005); United States 6 v. Washington, 653 F.3d 1057, 1063 (9th Cir. 2011). Because the motions are frivolous, 7 however, the Court will also order Mr. Gossett to show cause why he should not be sanctioned 8 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. 9 A. Dkt. 28 10 The motion filed at Dkt. 28 argues that the Court should vacate its November 8, 2024 11 order denying Mr. Gossett’s second motion for relief from judgment. The motion argues that 12 order is void “based upon the Court’s procedural failure to conduct de novo review of
13 jurisdiction challenge.” Dkt. 28 at 1. But this Court has conducted de novo review throughout 14 Mr. Gossett’s habeas proceeding and post-judgment motions, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed this 15 Court’s decisions by denying Mr. Gossett a certificate of appealability. Dkt. 27. This motion is 16 frivolous. 17 B. Dkt. 29 18 The motion filed at Dkt. 29 claims that the judgment is void because the U.S. Magistrate 19 Judge violated 28 U.S.C. § 636 by entering final judgment without Mr. Gossett’s consent. But 20 that is not true. The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation as authorized by 28 21 U.S.C. § 636(b), and the undersigned Article III judge conducted de novo review, dismissed 22 Mr. Gossett’s habeas petition, and entered judgment. Dkt. 15. This motion is also frivolous.
23 24 1 C. Dkt. 32 2 In Dkt. 32, Mr. Gossett appears to argue that the Magistrate Judge and District Judge 3 engaged in a fraudulent scheme by dismissing his habeas petition without ordering that the
4 original state court record be produced. But this Court dismissed Mr. Gossett’s petition based on 5 a threshold procedural issue—that his action was a second or successive habeas petition filed 6 without authorization from the Court of Appeals. Dkt. 15 at 1–2. The Court’s decision has 7 already been affirmed on appeal. Dkt. 27. This motion is also frivolous. 8 D. Sanctions Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 9 Although Mr. Gossett brings these motions pro se, he remains bound by the Federal 10 Rules of Civil Procedure, like any other litigant. Rule 11 expressly provides that it applies to “a 11 party personally if the party is unrepresented.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a). Under Rule 11, by signing a 12 motion, an unrepresented party certifies to the Court that “the claims, defenses, and other legal
13 contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, 14 modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(2). 15 Mr. Gossett’s motions appear to violate this rule, and his repeated use of motions for relief from 16 judgment to advance frivolous arguments abuses the judicial process and wastes time the Court 17 could spend handling other cases, including cases from other prisoners and pro se litigants. 18 Rule 11(c)(1) provides that “[i]f, after notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, the 19 court determines that Rule 11(b) has been violated, the court may impose an appropriate sanction 20 on any . . . party that violated the rule.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(1). The sanction should “be limited 21 to what suffices to deter repetition of the conduct or comparable conduct by others similarly 22 situated,” and may include “nonmonetary directives” or “an order to pay a penalty into court.”
23 Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(4). To give Mr. Gossett notice and an opportunity to be heard, the Court 24 l ORDERS Mr. Gossett to show cause no later than March 17, 2025 why he should not be 2 sanctioned for violating Rule 11(b)(2). 3 Il. CONCLUSION 4 For the reasons explained above, all of Mr. Gossett’s pending motions for relief from
5 judgment are DENIED. A certificate of appealability is also DENIED. Mr. Gossett is
6 ORDERED to show cause no later than March 17, 2025 why he should not be sanctioned for
7 filing frivolous motions in violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b)(2). g The Clerk is directed to send uncertified copies of this Order to all counsel of record and
g || to any party appearing pro se at said party’s last known address.
10 Dated this 3rd day of March, 2025.
Kx CC 2 TiffanyM. Cartwright United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24