Flores v. Martinez

Full title: ANDREW M. FLORES, Petitioner, v. WARDEN MARTINEZ, et al, Respondents

Court: United States District Court, W.D. Washington, at Tacoma

Date published: Mar 19, 2007

Case No. C06-5114RBL (W.D. Wash. Mar. 19, 2007)

Opinion

Case No. C06-5114RBL.

March 19, 2007

ORDER

RONALD LEIGHTON, District Judge

THIS MATTER comes on before the above-entitled Court upon Petitioner's [2^nd] Notice of Appeal and Motion for a Certificate of Appealability [Dkt. #31].

Having considered the entirety of the records and file herein, the Court finds and rules as follows:

Petitioner has filed a Notice of Appeal of this Court's Order adopting the report and recommendation denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus [Dkt. #28]. He has also filed a Letter seeking to supplement the record [Dkt. #34]. The Court will consider the letter as a Motion for Reconsideration and because the Letter/Motion fails to show "manifest error" in the Court's prior ruling or provide "new facts or legal authority," CR 7(h)(1), Local Rules W.D. Wash, the Letter/Motion [Dkt. #34] will be DENIED.

Petitioner has filed a Motion to Supplement the Record [Dkt. #35]. This motion, unlike the letter referenced above, does not seek reconsideration; rather, petitioner asks for more time to reply to any response by the respondent to his Motion for a Certificate of Appealability. Because respondent has not filed a response to petitioner's Motion for a Certificate of Appealability, petitioner's Motion to Supplement the Record [Dkt. #35] is DENIED as MOOT.

Furthermore, for the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation [Dkt. #24], this Court declines to issue a Certificate of Appealability because the petitioner has failed to make "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

The Clerk shall send uncertified copies of this order to all counsel of record, and to any party appearing pro se.