McDonald v. State of Washington

Opinion

2 FILED IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 3 May 21, 2020

4 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 6

7 ROBERT JAMES MCDONALD, NO: 2:20-CV-68-RMP 8 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 9 v. RECONSIDERATION

10 STATE OF WASHINGTON and COUNTY OF CHELAN, 11 Respondents. 12

13 BEFORE THE COURT is Petitioner Robert James McDonald’s document 14 titled, “Motion for Reconsideration Under a Writ of Coram Nobis and Vobis under 15 Title 28 § 1651 and Rule Nisi of the All Writs Act.” ECF No. 8. Mr. McDonald is 16 proceeding pro se and has paid the $5.00 filing fee. The Court has not directed 17 that the petition be served on Respondents. 18 On February 26, 2020, the Court dismissed Mr. McDonald’s Petition for 19 Writ of Habeas Corpus by a state prisoner for several reasons, including: Petitioner 20 was not “in custody” when he submitted his petition to the Court on February 19, 21 2020; it was implausible that Petitioner could have fully exhausted his state court 1 remedies regarding a sentence imposed on February 4, 2020; and abstention under 2 Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), was appropriate. See ECF No. 6 at 2−3.

3 Petitioner now asserts his entitlement to various writs. The Court finds no basis to 4 issue any writ under 28 U.S.C. § 1651. 5 A motion for reconsideration may be reviewed under either Federal Rule of

6 Civil Procedure 59(e) (motion to alter or amend a judgment) or Rule 60(b) (relief 7 from judgment). Sch. Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 8 1993). “A district court may properly reconsider its decision if it ‘(1) is presented 9 with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision

10 was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.’” 11 Smith v. Clark Cty. Sch. Dist., 727 F.3d 950, 955 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting School 12 Dist. No. 1J, 5 F.3d at 1263). “There may also be other, highly unusual,

13 circumstances warranting reconsideration.” School Dist. No. 1J, 5 F.3d at 1263. 14 These standards apply in habeas corpus proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 to the 15 extent they are not inconsistent with applicable federal statutory provisions and 16 rules. See Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 530 (2005).

17 In this instance, Petitioner has not presented newly discovered evidence. See 18 School Dist. No. IJ, 5 F.3d at 1263. He has not shown that the Court committed 19 clear error or that the dismissal order was manifestly unjust. Furthermore, there

20 has been no intervening change in controlling law and there are no other 21 circumstances warranting reconsideration. Id. 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 2 Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration, ECF No. 8, is DENIED. The

3 Clerk of Court is directed to enter this Order and provide a copy to Petitioner and 4 to counsel for Respondent. The file shall remain closed. The Court certifies 5 there is no basis upon which to issue a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. §

6 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). A certificate of appealability is therefore 7 DENIED. 8 DATED May 21, 2020. 9

10 s/ Rosanna Malouf Peterson ROSANNA MALOUF PETERSON 11 United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21