Wetmore-Tinney v. Hooper

Opinion

1 May 19, 2025 2 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 3 4 7 8 9 RAYMOND WETMORE-TINNEY, No. 2:25-CV-00037-SAB 10 Petitioner, 11 v. ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 12 CHIEF HOOPER (Spokane County RECONSIDERATION 13 Jail), JOHN DOE (Asotin County 14 Jail), and JOHN DOE (Washington 15 Dept of Corrections), 16 Respondents. 17 18 Before the Court is Petitioner Raymond Wetmore-Tinney’s pro se Motion 19 for Reconsideration. ECF No. 17. The motion was heard without oral argument. 20 Having reviewed the pleadings and the file in this matter, the Court is fully 21 informed and denies the motion. 22 Petitioner commenced this habeas action while incarcerated at the Asotin 23 County Jail. ECF No. 1. He was then transferred to the custody of the Washington 24 State Department of Corrections and subsequently released. ECF Nos. 9 and 15. 25 Petitioner has paid the $5.00 filing fee. Respondents have not been served. 26 A motion for reconsideration may be reviewed under either Federal Rule of 27 Civil Procedure 59(e) (motion to alter or amend a judgment) or Rule 60(b) (relief 28 from judgment). Sch. Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1 1993). “A district court may properly reconsider its decision if it ‘(1) is presented 2 with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision 3 was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.’” 4 Smith v. Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist., 727 F.3d 950, 955 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Sch. 5 Dist. No. 1J, 5 F.3d at 1263). “There may also be other, highly unusual, 6 circumstances warranting reconsideration.” Sch. Dist. No. 1J, 5 F.3d at 1263. 7 These standards apply in habeas corpus proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 to the 8 extent they are not inconsistent with applicable federal statutory provisions and 9 rules. See Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 530 (2005). 10 By Order filed April 8, 2025, the Court dismissed this action as premature 11 under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 41, 45 (1971). It is not clear from 12 Petitioner’s submissions whether he received a copy of the Court’s prior Order to 13 Show Cause why this action should not be dismissed as premature, ECF No. 8. See 14 ECF No. 17. None of his attached notices reference the Order to Show Cause. ECF 15 No. 17-1. Regardless, after careful review of Petitioner’s Motion, ECF No. 17, the 16 Court finds that Petitioner has still not presented facts demonstrating that he is 17 entitled to federal intervention at this time. See Younger, 401 U.S. at 45. 18 Petitioner asserts that he “was kept past his release date because the jails 19 didn’t send his jail time credits for which he spoke to his attorney for a month and 20 a half everyday on the phone about.” ECF No. 17 at 1–2. He accuses this Court of 21 failing to provide him a video hearing, although he provides no authority entitling 22 him to a video hearing and he does not state what such a hearing would 23 accomplish. Id. at 2. This Court has no authority to direct the actions of state courts 24 in the performance of their duties. Clark v. State of Washington, 366 F.2d 678, 25 681-82 (9th Cir. 1966) (holding that “federal courts are without power to issue 26 writs of mandamus to direct state courts or their judicial officers in the 27 performance of their duties”). 28 Petitioner asserts that he was denied access to the court, subjected to malicious prosecution, and denied his case file to adequately exhaust his state court remedies. /d. In any event, the failure to fully exhaust state court remedies concerning his challenged conviction would preclude a federal habeas court from granting Petitioner relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A). 5 In this instance, Petitioner has not presented newly discovered evidence. See Sch. Dist. No. L/, 5 F.3d at 1263. Petitioner has not shown that the Court committed clear error or that the dismissal Order was manifestly unjust. Furthermore, there has been no intervening change in controlling law and there are 9)|no other circumstances warranting reconsideration. Jd. 10 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED: 11 1. Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration, ECF No. 17, is DENIED. 12 2. The file shall remain closed. 13 3. The Court certifies that there is no basis upon which to issue a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). A 15|| certificate of appealability is therefore DENIED. 16 IT ISSO ORDERED. The Clerk of Court shall enter this Order, enter 17||sudgment, provide copies to Petitioner at his last known address and close the file. 18 DATED this 19th day of May 2025. 19 20 21 22 Sfrutley lb Estar od Stanley A. Bastian Chief United States District Judge 25 26 27 28

ANTRTN TRARTIATO VIATIAR TAN DEANnNeCImenadTinnr s,s