Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00012/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00012-2/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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LEO ARCHER, )

aka RICKY THOMAS, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, )

)

Respondent. )

____________________________________)

1:07-CV-00012 LJO SMS HC 

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

[Doc. #12]

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION

FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 

[Doc. #12]

Petitioner, serving a civil commitment, is proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On December 20, 2006, Petitioner filed a motion for the appointment of counsel. The Court denied

the motion on February 14, 2007. On February 27, 2007, Petitioner filed the instant motion for

reconsideration. Petitioner argues he is not a state prisoner; rather, he is serving a civil commitment in the

Department of Health after being found not guilty by reason of insanity in the Solano County Superior

Court. 

Pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 

the court may relieve a party or a party’s legal representative from a final judgment, 

order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or

excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not 

have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud 

Case 1:07-cv-00012-LJO -SMS Document 13 Filed 03/16/07 Page 1 of 2
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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 2

(whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other 

misconduct of an adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been

satisfied, released, or discharged, or a prior judgment upon which it is based has been

reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment should 

have prospective application; or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the 

operation of the judgment.

Good cause having been shown and good cause appearing therefor, Petitioner’s motion for

reconsideration is granted. The initial designation of Petitioner being a state prisoner was made based on

Petitioner’s address of record, that being a state prison. Therefore, the docket and record in this matter will

reflect that Petitioner is serving a civil commitment, not a state prison sentence. 

Petitioner also moves for reconsideration of the order denying appointment of counsel. As stated in

said order, there exists no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See e.g.,

Anderson v. Heinze, 258 F.2d 479, 481 (9 Cir.), cert. denied, 358 U.S. 889 (1958); Mitchell v. Wyrick, th

727 F.2d 773 (8 Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 823 (1984). However, Title 18 U.S.C. § 3006A th

authorizes the appointment of counsel at any stage of the case “if the interests of justice so require.” See

Rule 8(c), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. In this case, the Court does not find that the interests of

justice would be served by the appointment of counsel at this time. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1) Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration is GRANTED; and

2) Petitioner’s request for appointment of counsel is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 16, 2007 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00012-LJO -SMS Document 13 Filed 03/16/07 Page 2 of 2