Kliewer v. Bennett

United States District Court, Eastern District of Washington · February 7, 2025 · No. 2:24-cv-00293

Summary

This federal district court order denies a petitioner's motion for relief from judgment following the dismissal of his habeas corpus petition for failure to exhaust state remedies and under Younger abstention principles. Applying Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60(b), the court finds no basis for reconsideration due to a lack of new evidence, clear error, manifest injustice, or changes in controlling law. The motion is denied, a certificate of appealability is refused, and the case file remains closed.

Court
United States District Court, Eastern District of Washington
Writing for the Court
Stanley A. Bastian
Jurisdiction
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington
Decision date
February 7, 2025
Docket number
2:24-cv-00293
Procedural posture
Petitioner's motion for relief from judgment denied; case dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust state remedies.
Precedential value
unknown
Disposition
dismissed

Topics

post-conviction reliefcivil procedure

Practice areas

civil procedurepost-conviction relief

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the district court properly dismissed the petition for failure to exhaust state court remedies under the Younger abstention doctrine.
  2. Whether the district court erred in denying the motion for relief from judgment under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60(b).

Holdings

  1. The dismissal was proper because the petitioner failed to exhaust available state court remedies, and Younger abstention applied.
  2. The denial was proper because the petitioner failed to demonstrate any of the statutory grounds for reconsideration under Rules 59(e) or 60(b).

Key quotations

A district court may properly reconsider its decision if it ‘(1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.’

Factual background

Petitioner Eugene Kliewer filed a habeas corpus petition asserting a Sixth Amendment claim and alleged violations of the Magistrate’s Act and Habeas Rule 4 and 8(b). The district court dismissed the case for failure to exhaust state remedies and later denied Kliewer's motion to reopen the case.

Procedural history

The district court dismissed the habeas petition without prejudice for failure to exhaust state court remedies, invoking Younger abstention. Petitioner filed a motion for relief from judgment, which the court denied, also denying a certificate of appealability. The petitioner subsequently appealed to the Ninth Circuit.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…