Soren Richard Olsen II v. Jeffrey Perkins

W.D. Washington

Soren Richard Olsen II v. Jeffrey Perkins

DecidedOctober 27, 2025

Docket2:25-cv-00638

StatusUnknown

This text of Soren Richard Olsen II v. Jeffrey Perkins (Soren Richard Olsen II v. Jeffrey Perkins) 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

Soren Richard Olsen II v. Jeffrey Perkins, (W.D. Wash. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 SOREN RICHARD OLSEN II, 9 Petitioner, Case No. C25-638-KKE 10 v. ORDER DISMISSING ACTION 11 JEFFREY PERKINS, 12 Respondent. 13

14 Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation of the Honorable Michelle L. Peterson, 15 United States Magistrate Judge (Dkt. No. 25), Petitioner’s objections to that (Dkt. No. 26), and the 16 remaining record, the Court finds and ORDERS: 17 (1) The Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation. None of Petitioner’s 18 objections demonstrates error in the Report and Recommendation. First, although Petitioner 19 contends that Judge Peterson erred in considering his amended petition to be his operative petition, 20 the Report and Recommendation explicitly references both the original and amended petition and 21 addresses the issues raised in both. See Dkt. No. 25 at 1. 22 And to the extent that Petitioner objects that the Report and Recommendation overlooks 23 his request for an evidentiary hearing (Dkt. No. 26 at 6), an evidentiary hearing is not appropriate 1 here. See Dkt. No. 15 at 5 (setting forth the law that governs when an evidentiary hearing is 2 appropriate, and explaining why it does not support a hearing here). Judge Peterson explained: 3 “Review under § 2254(d) is limited to the record before the state court[.]” Dkt. No. 25 at 5 (citing 4 Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170, 181–82 (2011)).

5 Petitioner’s other objections fail to establish error in the Report and Recommendation and 6 instead reiterate arguments rejected for reasons persuasively explained in the Report and 7 Recommendation itself. Thus, Petitioner’s objections are OVERRULED. 8 (2) Petitioner’s amended petition for writ of habeas corpus (Dkt. No. 10) is DENIED, 9 and this action is DISMISSED with prejudice. 10 (3) In accordance with Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the 11 United States District Courts, a certificate of appealability is DENIED. 12 (4) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to Petitioner, to counsel for 13 Respondent, and to the Honorable Michelle L. Peterson. 14 Dated this 27th day of October, 2025.

15 A 16 Kymberly K. Evanson 17 United States District Judge

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 SOREN RICHARD OLSEN II, 9 Petitioner, Case No. C25-638-KKE 10 v. ORDER DISMISSING ACTION 11 JEFFREY PERKINS, 12 Respondent. 13

14 Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation of the Honorable Michelle L. Peterson, 15 United States Magistrate Judge (Dkt. No. 25), Petitioner’s objections to that (Dkt. No. 26), and the 16 remaining record, the Court finds and ORDERS: 17 (1) The Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation. None of Petitioner’s 18 objections demonstrates error in the Report and Recommendation. First, although Petitioner 19 contends that Judge Peterson erred in considering his amended petition to be his operative petition, 20 the Report and Recommendation explicitly references both the original and amended petition and 21 addresses the issues raised in both. See Dkt. No. 25 at 1. 22 And to the extent that Petitioner objects that the Report and Recommendation overlooks 23 his request for an evidentiary hearing (Dkt. No. 26 at 6), an evidentiary hearing is not appropriate 1 here. See Dkt. No. 15 at 5 (setting forth the law that governs when an evidentiary hearing is 2 appropriate, and explaining why it does not support a hearing here). Judge Peterson explained: 3 “Review under § 2254(d) is limited to the record before the state court[.]” Dkt. No. 25 at 5 (citing 4 Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170, 181–82 (2011)).

5 Petitioner’s other objections fail to establish error in the Report and Recommendation and 6 instead reiterate arguments rejected for reasons persuasively explained in the Report and 7 Recommendation itself. Thus, Petitioner’s objections are OVERRULED. 8 (2) Petitioner’s amended petition for writ of habeas corpus (Dkt. No. 10) is DENIED, 9 and this action is DISMISSED with prejudice. 10 (3) In accordance with Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the 11 United States District Courts, a certificate of appealability is DENIED. 12 (4) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to Petitioner, to counsel for 13 Respondent, and to the Honorable Michelle L. Peterson. 14 Dated this 27th day of October, 2025.

15 A 16 Kymberly K. Evanson 17 United States District Judge

18 19 20 21 22 23

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Soren Richard Olsen II v. Jeffrey Perkins, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/soren-richard-olsen-ii-v-jeffrey-perkins-wawd-2025.