Lawson v. Key

W.D. Washington

Lawson v. Key

DecidedFebruary 17, 2021

Docket3:18-cv-05998

StatusUnknown

This text of Lawson v. Key (Lawson v. Key) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lawson v. Key, (W.D. Wash. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 GEOFFREY ROBERT LAWSON SR., 9 Petitioner, CASE NO. 3:18-cv-05998-RSL-BAT 10 v. ORDER OF DISMISSAL 11 JAMES KEY, 12 Respondent.

13 Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation of the Honorable Brian A. Tsuchida, 14 United States Magistrate Judge, any objections or responses to that,1 and the remaining record, 15 the Court finds and ORDERS: 16 (1) The Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation as to all sections except: 17 the underlying offenses at page 1, lines 15–16, which should exclude the reference to “Unlawful 18 Possession of a Controlled Substance”; the date when the Washington Supreme Court denied 19

20 1 In petitioner’s objections, petitioner newly claims that the Department of Corrections prevented him from filing a timely habeas petition. Dkt. # 46 at 6–8. The petitioner had the opportunity to 21 raise the existence of circumstances warranting equitable tolling in a reply to the government’s response to his petition filed approximately two years ago, Dkt. # 17, and yet he did not do so, 22 despite numerous extensions. Therefore, the Court upholds the magistrate judge’s determinations and declines to exercise its discretion to allow the record to be supplemented. See United States 23 v. Howell, 231 F.3d 615, 621–23 (9th Cir. 2000). 1 petitioner’s motion to modify the Commissioner’s ruling, listed at page 5, line 6, which should 2 read “February 7, 2018,” not “February 18, 2018”; and the date when the statute of limitations 3 expired, listed at page 5, lines 9–10, which should read “February 13, 2018,” not “February 24, 4 2018.”

5 (2) The case is dismissed with prejudice and issuance of a certificate of appealability 6 is denied. 7 (3) The Clerk shall provide copies of this Order to the parties. 8 Dated this 17th day of February 2021. 9 A

10 ROBERT S. LASNIK United States District Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

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 SEATTLE 7 8 GEOFFREY ROBERT LAWSON SR., 9 Petitioner, CASE NO. 3:18-cv-05998-RSL-BAT 10 v. ORDER OF DISMISSAL 11 JAMES KEY, 12 Respondent.

13 Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation of the Honorable Brian A. Tsuchida, 14 United States Magistrate Judge, any objections or responses to that,1 and the remaining record, 15 the Court finds and ORDERS: 16 (1) The Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation as to all sections except: 17 the underlying offenses at page 1, lines 15–16, which should exclude the reference to “Unlawful 18 Possession of a Controlled Substance”; the date when the Washington Supreme Court denied 19

20 1 In petitioner’s objections, petitioner newly claims that the Department of Corrections prevented him from filing a timely habeas petition. Dkt. # 46 at 6–8. The petitioner had the opportunity to 21 raise the existence of circumstances warranting equitable tolling in a reply to the government’s response to his petition filed approximately two years ago, Dkt. # 17, and yet he did not do so, 22 despite numerous extensions. Therefore, the Court upholds the magistrate judge’s determinations and declines to exercise its discretion to allow the record to be supplemented. See United States 23 v. Howell, 231 F.3d 615, 621–23 (9th Cir. 2000). 1 petitioner’s motion to modify the Commissioner’s ruling, listed at page 5, line 6, which should 2 read “February 7, 2018,” not “February 18, 2018”; and the date when the statute of limitations 3 expired, listed at page 5, lines 9–10, which should read “February 13, 2018,” not “February 24, 4 2018.”

5 (2) The case is dismissed with prejudice and issuance of a certificate of appealability 6 is denied. 7 (3) The Clerk shall provide copies of this Order to the parties. 8 Dated this 17th day of February 2021. 9 A

10 ROBERT S. LASNIK United States District Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Lawson v. Key, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lawson-v-key-wawd-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack