Gossett v. Speer

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: February 19, 2025
• Docket: 3:24-cv-06038
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE 9 MARK J. GOSSETT, CASE NO. C24-6038-JCC-GJL 10 Petitioner, ORDER 11 v. 12 SCOTT SPEER, 13 Respondent. 14

15 This matter comes before the Court on Petitioner Mark Gossett’s objections (Dkt. Nos. 6, 16 7) to the report and recommendation (“R&R”) of the Honorable Grady J. Leupold, United States 17 Magistrate Judge (Dkt. No. 4). Judge Leupold recommends the Court dismiss without prejudice 18 Mr. Gossett’s habeas petition. (Id. at 4.) Having thoroughly considered the briefing and the 19 relevant record, the Court hereby OVERRULES Plaintiff’s objections and ADOPTS Judge 20 Leupold’s R&R. 21 According to the R&R, Mr. Gossett filed two prior federal habeas petitions challenging 22 the same state court conviction presented here.1 (Dkt. No. 4 at 2.) The Court concluded that the 23 first petition was untimely (thus denying it on the merits) and the second duplicative, as Mr. 24 1 See generally Gossett v. Bennett, Case No. C24-5131-RAJ, Dkt. No. 1 (W.D. Wash. 2024) 25 (alleging Fourteenth Amendment due process violations); Gossett v. Bennett, Case No. C24- 5491-TMC, Dkt. No. 1 (W.D. Wash. 2024) (alleging unlawful seizure in violation of the Fourth 26 Amendment). 1 Gossett filed it while the first one was pending (dismissing it on procedural grounds). (Id.) The 2 Ninth Circuit denied Mr. Gossett’s appeal of both decisions. (Id. at 3.) 3 Judge Leupold now recommends dismissing the instant petition for lack of jurisdiction. 4 (See generally id.) First, Judge Leupold recommends treating Mr. Gossett’s petition as one under 5 28 U.S.C. § 2254 rather than 28 U.S.C. § 2241, as § 2254 is the only habeas remedy available for 6 a state court conviction. (Id. at 4.) Judge Leupold next concludes that Mr. Gossett’s petition is a 7 second or successive one under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2). (See id. at 4–5.) And as Judge Leupold 8 rightfully notes, this Court lacks jurisdiction to examine a second or successive petition unless 9 authorized by the Ninth Circuit. (Id. at 2) (citing § 2244(b)(3)). Judge Leupold aptly concludes 10 that Mr. Gossett failed to receive such authorization here. (Id. at 6.) 11 In objecting, Mr. Gossett does not meaningfully address this jurisdictional defect or 12 Judge Leupold’s ultimate recommendation. (See generally Dkt. Nos. 6, 7.) Instead, he lodges 13 generic, non-responsive arguments, including even an objection to a magistrate judge writing an 14 R&R to begin with. (See generally Dkt. Nos. 6, 7.) As a result, Mr. Gossett’s petition is 15 insufficient to trigger de novo review of the R&R. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 72(b)(3); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2) (a party properly objects by filing “specific written 17 objections”); Simpson v. Lear Astronics Corp., 77 F.3d 1170, 1175 (9th Cir. 1996) (describing 18 the requirements for a proper objection). As such, the Court need not consider Mr. Gossett’s 19 objections or, by extension, his petition. 20 The Court therefore OVERRULES Mr. Gossett’s objections (Dkt. Nos. 6, 7), ADOPTS 21 the R&R (Dkt. No. 4), DISMISSES the petition without prejudice, DENIES Mr. Gossett’s 22 motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. No. 1), DENIES a certificate of 23 appealability, and DIRECTS the Clerk to send copies of this order to Mr. Gossett and Judge 24 Leupold. 25 // 26 // 1 DATED this 19th day of February 2025. A 2 3 4 John C. Coughenour 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26