Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-02411/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-02411-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 1 - 06cv2411

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARCEL O. GOMEZ,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 06-CV-2411-H (CAB)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION AND

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT

OF COUNSEL AND GRANTING

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO

APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS

vs.

JEFFREY FAGOT, Regional

Administrator, Adult Parole Operations;

Region 4,

Respondent.

On September 8, 2008, petitioner Marcel Omar Gomez (“Petitioner”), a state prisoner

proceeding pro se, filed a document which includes an appeal of the Court’s order with a

number of motions including a request for reconsideration by this Court and a motion to

appoint counsel. (Doc. No. 81) On September 16, 2008, petitioner filed a motion to proceed

in forma pauperis. (Doc. No. 82) To the extent that these motions are directed at the District

Court, the Court denies the motion for reconsideration and all other motions. The Court grants

Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis for his appeal to the Ninth Circuit. 

Background

On July 24, 2008, this Court issued an order adopting the report and recommendation

to deny the habeas petition and denying a certificate of appealability. (Doc. No. 78) Petitioner

had claimed that the imposition of the sex offender registration requirement violated the terms

Case 3:06-cv-02411-H-CAB Document 83 Filed 10/09/08 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 - 06cv2411

of his plea agreement and requested the plea and conviction be set aside because of ineffective

assistance of counsel. This Court concluded that Petitioner was not deprived of effective

assistance of counsel and that he entered the plea agreement knowingly and voluntarily, and

accordingly, denied Petitioner’s motion for a writ of habeas corpus. (Order Adopting R&R

11, 13). 

Discussion

A. Motion for Reconsideration 

Petitioner filed a document that appears to combine an appeal of the Court’s order with

a motion for reconsideration and other requests. To the extent that any motions are directed

at the District Court, the Court denies the motions. Reconsideration “is appropriate if the

district court (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.” School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County v. AC & S, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir.

1993). Whether to grant or deny reconsideration is within the discretion of the district court.

United States v. Desert Gold Mining Co., 433 F.2d 713, 715 (9th Cir. 1970). 

After a thorough review of Plaintiff’s motion and the record in this case, the Court

concludes that Plaintiff’s motion fails to establish grounds for reconsideration. Therefore, the

Court denies Plaintiff’s motion. 

B. Motion to Appoint Counsel

Second, petitioner filed an motion for appointment of counsel. To the extent that this

motion is directed at the District Court, the Court denies the motion. The Sixth Amendment

right to counsel does not extend to federal habeas corpus actions by state prisoners. See

Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986). However, a federal habeas petitioner

is entitled to appointed counsel if the court “determines that the interests of justice so require.”

18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B); Terrovona v. Kincheloe, 912 F.2d 1176, 1181 (9th Cir. 1990).

The Court concludes that Petitioner has sufficiently represented himself to date, that Petitioner

appears to have a good understanding of this case and the legal and factual issues involved, and

that the interests of justice do not at this time require the appointment of counsel. 

Case 3:06-cv-02411-H-CAB Document 83 Filed 10/09/08 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 - 06cv2411

C. Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

Petitioner filed a motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis for his appeal to the Ninth

Circuit. Under the federal rules, motions for leave to appeal in forma pauperis are properly

filed in the district court. See

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); Fed. R. App. P. 24(a). Based on Petitioner’s monetary status, the

Court grants Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis for his appeal. This Court

renews its denial of a certificate of appealability. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 9, 2008

________________________________

MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

COPIES TO:

All parties of record.

and 

Ms. Isabel Gomez

4444 W Point Loma Blvd. Apt. #67

San Diego, CA 92107-1027

Case 3:06-cv-02411-H-CAB Document 83 Filed 10/09/08 Page 3 of 3