Manuel v. Bennett

1 HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 9 AT TACOMA RENE DEWAYNE MANUEL, 11 CASE NO. 3:24-cv-05412-RAJ-DWC Petitioner, 12 v. ORDER 13 JASON BENNETT, 14 Respondent.

16 I. INTRODUCTION THIS MATTER comes before the Court on pro se Petitioner Rene Dewayne Manuel (“Petitioner”)’s Motions for Relief from Judgment. Dkts. ## 27, 29. The Court issued an Order denying four similar motions on November 15, 2024, and reincorporates the facts as presented in that Order. See Dkt. # 28.

II. DISCUSSION 21 Petitioner challenges the judgment for being procedural defective pursuant to Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524 (2005).1 See Dkts. ## 27, 29. He further asserts that the Court 1 Petitioner makes a typographical error in his citation to this case, highlighting his carelessness in filing this series of motions. violated the Magistrate Act and Habeas Rule 8(b) by failing to conduct de novo review of his Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing. Dkt. # 27 at 1. Petitioner also claims this Court “asserted a procedural defense not made by respondent.” Dkt. # 29 at 1.

4 To the extent Petitioner challenges de novo review of any motion filed before the Court adopted the Report, the Court properly considered all pleadings. See Dkt. # 14 at 1- 2. Furthermore, the Court did not “assert a procedural defense not made by respondent.”

See Dkt. # 29 at 1.

Petitioner has consistently taken advantage of valuable judicial resources by filing a surfeit of meritless motions. He also appears to disregard prior orders. None of the motions alters the uncontested fact that the habeas petition filed in this case is time-barred.

10 The Court will not consider any further filings from Petitioner.

11 III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES the pending motions. Dkts. ## 27, 29. The Clerk is INSTRUCTED not to accept any further filings in this case.

Dated this 25th day of November, 2024.

16 A The Honorable Richard A. Jones United States District Judge