Roberson v. Bennett

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE NEIL JAMES ROBERSON, CASE NO. C24-0241-JCC Petitioner, ORDER 11 v. JASON BENNETT, 13 Respondent.

15 This matter comes before the Court on Petitioner’s motions for relief from judgment (Dkt. Nos. 12, 13). The motions follow the Court’s order overruling Petitioner’s objections and adopting the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) from the Honorable Theresa L. Fricke, United States Magistrate Judge, that the petition be dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust. (See Dkt. No. 7.)

20 The Court issued the judgment after concluding that Petitioner’s objections failed to address the exhaustion issue. (See generally id.) In now moving for relief from this judgment, Petitioner contends that the Court conducted an inadequate review of the R&R. (See generally Dkt. Nos. 12, 13.) But, again, the objections previously lodged were not responsive to the threshold issue of exhaustion, (see Dkt. No. 6), and on this basis, are not effective in triggering the de novo review Petitioner now seeks. See Simpson v. Lear Astronics Corp., 77 F.3d 1170, 1175 (9th Cir. 1996) (describing the requirements for an effective objection). Therefore, the instant motions are ineffective.

2 Accordingly, Petitioner’s motions for relief from judgment (Dkt. Nos. 12, 13) are DENIED and the Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability.1 5 DATED this 5th day of September 2024.

A John C. Coughenour 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE No reasonable jurist could find that the petition at issue could have been resolved in a different manner, given the exhaustion issue. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003).