Buzzard v. Uttecht ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 RONALD BUZZARD, JR., CASE NO. 2:21-cv-01061-JCC-JRC 11 Petitioner, ORDER 12 v. 13 JEFFREY UTTECHT, 14 Respondent. 15 16 Petitioner brought this matter under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Before this Court is petitioner’s 17 motion to file overlength motion and opening brief, which this Court treats as a motion for 18 reconsideration. Dkt. 20. As discussed below, this Court denies this motion. 19 Petitioner asks this Court to reconsider its denial of his request to file, in essence, a 65- 20 page petition. Petitioner contends that Local Rule 7(e), which limits certain complex motions to 21 24 pages, does not apply to habeas petitions. Therefore, petitioner reasons that this Court erred in 22 relying on Local Rule 7(e) in denying his request. However, Local Rule 100(a) allows this Court 23 to apply Local Rule 7(e) to habeas petitions. Accordingly, because this Court did not err in citing 24 Local Rule 7(e), it denies the motion for reconsideration. 1 Petitioner filed a motion to amend his petition. Dkt. 15. This Court denied it. Dkt. 17. 2 This Court explained to petitioner that he did not need permission to file an amended petition 3 because he had yet to exercise his automatic right to file an amended petition. Id. at 2. This Court 4 further stated that, if petitioner filed an amended petition, he must do so on this District’s form 5 for § 2254 cases and could submit up to ten continuation sheets. Id. at 3. 6 Petitioner filed a motion to clarify. Dkt. 18. Petitioner contended that he had sought to 7 file an “opening brief” to support his petition, not an amended petition. See Dkt. 19. This Court 8 issued an order denying his motion to clarify. Id. This Court reasoned that “amending the 9 petition with the opening brief would be improper because the combined length of the petition 10 and the opening brief would total 65 pages.” Id. (citing Local Rule 7(e)). Local Rule 7(e) 11 provides that certain complex motions “shall not exceed twenty-four pages.” 12 In his motion for reconsideration, petitioner argues that this Court erred in citing Local 13 Rule 7(e) when denying his motion to clarify. See Dkt. 20. Petitioner contends that Local Rule 14 7(e) applies to motions, not habeas petitions and opening briefs. See id. at 1. Thus, he reasons 15 that filing the opening brief to support the petition would not result in an overlength petition. See 16 id. Furthermore, petitioner generally alleges that he needs to file his opening brief to adequately 17 articulate his claims. See id. at 2. 18 “Local rules have the force of law and are binding upon the parties . . . .” Pro. Programs 19 Grp. v. Dep’t of Com., 29 F.3d 1349, 1353 (9th Cir. 1994) (citation and internal quotation marks 20 omitted). “Motions for reconsideration are disfavored.” Local Rule 7(h)(1). “The court will 21 ordinarily deny such motions in the absence of a showing of manifest error in the prior ruling or 22 a showing of new facts or legal authority which could not have been brought to its attention 23 earlier with reasonable diligence.” Id. 24 1 Under Local Rule 100(a), “[p]etitions for habeas corpus . . . are not subject to [Local Rule 2 7(e)] unless directed by the court.” (emphasis added). Furthermore, “courts are invested with 3 inherent powers . . . to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious 4 disposition of cases.” Unigard Sec. Ins. Co. v. Lakewood Eng’g & Mfg. Corp., 982 F.2d 363, 368 5 (9th Cir. 1992) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 6 Here, this Court denies the motion for reconsideration. Local Rule 100(a) authorizes this 7 Court to apply Local Rule 7(e)’s 24-page limit to habeas petitions. This Court properly does so 8 here for two main reasons. First, the petition does not present complex issues that require 9 extensive briefing. See Dkt. 6. Second, as this Court indicated in denying petitioner’s motion to 10 expedite, petitioner has yet to adequately show a reasonable likelihood that his petition is 11 meritorious. See Dkt. 8 at 2. In these circumstances, allowing petitioner to file a 65-page petition 12 is not necessary for petitioner to adequately present his claims and does not promote the orderly 13 and expeditious disposition of this case. 14 Accordingly, this Court DENIES the motion for reconsideration (Dkt. 20). 15 Petitioner is cautioned to follow the rules of this Court, rather than attempting to 16 circumvent them. By doing so, this Court will be better positioned to evaluate the merits of the 17 petition. 18 Dated this 5th day of October, 2021. A 19 20 J. Richard Creatura Chief United States Magistrate Judge 21 22 23 24