Roberson v. Verge

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 NEIL JAMES ROBERSON, CASE NO. C24-1130-JCC 10 Petitioner, ORDER 11 v. 12 VERGE, 13 Respondent. 14

15 This matter comes before the Court on Petitioner’s multiple motions for relief from 16 judgment (Dkt. Nos. 14–16). Having thoroughly considered the relevant record, the Court 17 DENIES each for the reasons explained herein. 18 Petitioner filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition in July 2024. (Dkt. No. 1.) But after he 19 failed to timely respond to the Honorable United States Magistrate Judge Theresa L. Fricke’s 20 order to show cause, which treated the petition as one brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, (see Dkt. 21 No. 8 at 2),1 Judge Fricke recommended the Court dismiss the petition without prejudice. (See 22 Dkt. No. 9.) This Court adopted the recommendation and issued judgment after Petitioner failed 23 to lodge timely objections to the recommendation. (See Dkt. No. 12.) 24

25 1 According to the order to show cause, the petition fails to establish the requisite exhaustion of state court remedies. (See Dkt. No. 8 at 2) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(c); Picard v. Connor, 404 26 U.S. 270, 275 (1971)). 1 Petitioner now moves for relief from that judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 2 Procedure 60(b), contending that the Court failed to conduct a de novo review of his petition. 3 (See generally Dkt. Nos. 14–16.) Under Rule 60(b), the Court may grant relief from a judgment 4 upon a showing of (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered 5 evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered before the Court’s decision; (3) 6 fraud by the adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied; or (6) 7 any other reason justifying relief. The last ground is “used sparingly as an equitable remedy to 8 prevent manifest injustice and is to be utilized only where extraordinary circumstances prevented 9 a party from taking timely action to prevent or correct an erroneous judgment.” Harvest v. 10 Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 749 (9th Cir. 2008). 11 Petitioner has not established any of the grounds for relief under Rule 60(b). First, the 12 Court only conducts de novo review of those portions of a magistrate judge’s recommendation to 13 which a party properly objects. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). This allows 14 the Court to “focus attention on those issues—factual and legal—that are at the heart of the 15 parties’ dispute.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 147 (1985); see U.S. v. Howell, 231 F.3d 615, 16 621 (9th Cir. 2000) (“[A]n unsuccessful party is not entitled as of right to de novo review by the 17 judge of an argument never seasonably raised before the magistrate.”). Second, even if the Court 18 were to vacate the judgment, this would not change the outcome. This is because the Court has 19 thoroughly reviewed the petition and Judge Fricke’s recommendation and confirms that the 20 recommendation is well reasoned and sound. 21 Accordingly, Petitioner’s multiple Rule 60(b) motions (Dkt. Nos. 14–16) are DENIED. 22 DATED this 26th day of December 2024. A 23 24 25 John C. Coughenour 26 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE