Gossett v. Bennett

1 HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES — 2 — — 3 — — 4 — — 5 — — 6 — — 7 — 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 9 AT SEATTLE — 10 — MARK JONATHAN GOSSETT, 11 CASE NO. 3:24-cv-5408 Petitioner, 12 v. ORDER 13 JASON BENNETT, 14 Respondent. 15 I. INTRODUCTION THIS MATTER comes before the Court on pro se prisoner petitioner Mark Jonathan — 16 — Gossett’s motions for relief from judgment. Dkts. # 18-20, 23-26.1 On August 21, 2024, — 17 — the Court adopted the Report and Recommendation of S. Kate Vaughan, United States — 18 — Magistrate Judge (“R&R”). See Dkts. # 4, 15. The Court dismissed Mr. Gossett’s petition — 19 — pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (a), as it constituted an unauthorized second or successive 20 petition and denied a Certificate of Appealability. Mr. Gossett has since appealed. Dkts. 21 # 21-22. — 22 — 23 1 The court exercises its discretion to decide the motion before the October 18, 2024 noting date of the most recently filed Motion, Dkt. # 26. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 (directing district courts to administer the rules of procedure “to secure 24 the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding”). — 1 — II. DISCUSSION — 2 — Mr. Gossett’s motions for relief from judgment, are difficult to follow, and do not 3 address the substance of the R&R or the reasoning behind it. Petitioner challenges the 4 judgment for not applying successive analysis pursuant to Sanders v. United States, 373 5 U.S. 1 (1963), finality analysis pursuant to Gospel Army v. Los Angeles, 331 U.S. 543 (1947), and a retroactivity analysis pursuant to Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989). See — 6 — Dkts. # 18, 19, 23. Petitioner asserts the Court violated the Magistrate Act and Habeas — 7 — Rule 4 and 8(b) by recharacterizing petition’s claim as a under § 2254. See Dkt. # 20. — 8 — Petitioner asserts that the Court violated the Magistrate Act and Habeas Rule 8(b) by failing 9 to conduct de novo review of his petition and subsequent motions. See Dkts. # 24-26. 10 Petitioner does not address the authority under which his motion is made, Federal 11 Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4), and he does not address the standard for a motion for reconsideration. To the extent Mr. Gossett challenges de novo review of his motions filed — 12 — before the Court adopted the R&R, the Court properly considered the motions and — 13 — construed them as objections to the R&R. See Dkt. # 15 at 1 n.1. — 14 — III. CONCLUSION — 15 — The Court’s judgment is not void, and Mr. Gossett is not entitled to a Certificate of 16 Appealability, because his habeas petition is plainly a second or successive petition. 17 Accordingly, the Court DENIES the pending motions. Dkts. # 18-20, 23-26. The case 18 remains closed. DATED this 8th day of October, 2024. — 19 — A — 20 — — 21 — The Honorable Richard A. Jones 22 United States District Judge — 23 — — 24 —